The
media in an election play a key role, not only as a means of scrutinizing
government actions, but also ensuring that the electorate has all the necessary
information at its disposal to make an informed and democratic choice.
Governments have an important negative obligation not to impede the media in
playing these functions. In addition, and at least as importantly, governments
have a positive obligation to facilitate media pluralism in order to expose the
public to the widest variety of sources of information. Indeed, the obligation
contained in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), guaranteeing freedom of expression and freedom of information,
applies only to governments and certainly not to individual media
organizations.
As the
Human Rights Committee (HRC) stated in its 1983 General Comment on Article 19
of the ICCPR:
Because of the development of the modern mass media, effective
measures are necessary to prevent such control of the media as would interfere
with the right of everyone to freedom of expression...[i]
The
HRC elaborated on the point in its 2011 General Comment, stating:
The State should not have monopoly control over the media and
should promote plurality of the media. Consequently, States parties should take
appropriate action, consistent with the Covenant, to prevent undue media
dominance or concentration by privately controlled media groups in monopolistic
situations that may be harmful to a diversity of sources and views.[ii]
The UN
Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression has listed both commercial pressures and
government regulation as threats to media pluralism and public interest
content. Some of the key challenges to independent media in 2010 that the
Rapporteur identified included growing concentration of ownership, cost-cutting
measures by private owners, existing broadcasters gaining access to new digital
frequencies during the digital switchover, thereby exacerbating concentration,
and political interference in the media.[iii].
Jurisprudence
from countries as varied as Ghana, Sri Lanka, Belize, India, Trinidad and
Tobago and Zambia underlines the twin points that media monopolies are an
unacceptable interference with freedom of expression and that publicly-funded
media have an obligation to convey viewpoints other than that of the government
of the day. A number of these judgments (Zambia, Belize and Trinidad and
Tobago) refer to the right of political opponents of the government to have
their viewpoint heard in the public media. This right extends to other types of
minority as well. The following recommendation is drawn from a UN report on
minority rights:
Members of different groups should enjoy the right to
participate, on the basis of their own culture and language, in the cultural
life of the community, to produce and enjoy arts and science, to protect their
cultural heritage and traditions, to own their own media and other means of
communication and to have access on a basis of equality to State-owned or
publicly controlled media.[iv]
It is
important to stress that the role of the media is not just as a vehicle for
expression in the narrow sense. The media are important also as a means to
enable the public to exercise their right to freedom of information; and this
right is closely linked to media pluralism, because without it the public
cannot access a diversity of information. Detailed guidelines produced by the United Nations reflecting best
international practice on pluralism and access to the media include those
issued by the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia. These stated:
An independent
and free media should have a diversity of ownership, and it should promote and
safeguard democracy, while opening opportunities and avenues for economic,
social and cultural development.[v]
In the
most definitive statement from a United Nations authority, the UN Special
Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Abid Hussein, concluded in his
1999 annual report:
"There are several fundamental principles that, if
promoted and respected, enhance the right to seek, receive and impart information.
These principles are: a monopoly or excessive concentration of ownership of
media in the hands of a few is to be avoided in the interest of developing a
plurality of viewpoints and voices; State-owned media have a responsibility to
report on all aspects of national life and to provide access to a diversity of
viewpoints; State-owned media must not be used as a communication or propaganda
organ for one political party or as an advocate for the Government to the
exclusion of all other parties and groups..."[vi]
The
Special Rapporteur then went on to list a series of obligations on the State to
ensure "that the media are given the widest possible latitude" in
order to achieve "the most fully informed electorate possible":
- There should not be bias or
discrimination in media coverage
- Censorship of election
programmes should not be allowed
- Media should be exempt from
legal liability for provocative statements and a right of reply should be
provided
- There should be a clear
distinction between news coverage of functions of government office and
functions as a party candidate
- Air time for direct access
programmes should be granted on a fair and non-discriminatory basis
- Programmes provide an
opportunity for candidates to debate each other and for journalists to
question them
- Media should engage in
voter education
- Programmes should target
traditionally disadvantaged groups, which may include women and ethnic and
religious minorities.
More information on
this topic can be found in the section
Media Ownership and Elections.
[i] Adopted by the
Human Rights Committee at its 461st meeting on 27 July 1983, UN Doc. A/38/40,
109.
[ii] “General Comment No. 34,
Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression”, (Human Rights Committee 102nd
Session, Geneva, July 11-29, 2011), 10, (UN doc. CCPR/C/GC/34)
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf. Note: The HRC has
made only these two General Comments on Article 19 of the ICCPR. The HRC’s
General Comments are intended to provide interpretations of the meaning of the
Articles for parties to use in their implementation.
[iii] “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the rights to freedom of opinion and
expression. Addendum, Tenth anniversary
joint declaration: Ten key challenges to freedom of expression in the next
decade,” (UN General Assembly, UN doc. A/HRC/14/23/Add. March 25, 2010)
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.23.Add.2_en.pdf
[iv] “Positive ways
and means of facilitating the peaceful and constructive solution of problems
involving minorities (Report by Special Rapporteur Asbjorn Eide)”, (Addendum 4,
UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/34/Add.4) part II, paras 11 and 12.
[v] “Media
Guidelines for Cambodia”, UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) (1992),
[vi] “Report of the
Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression, Mr. Abid Hussain,” (UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/64 29 January
1999)
