Most countries make a clear distinction between private and publicly-owned media in their regulatory systems, and in particular in the obligations that are placed upon them in election periods.
There are a number of different options, as well as a variety of different issues to be addressed.
Different System for the Private Media
One approach is for the private media to operate in elections under completely different rules. This will apply most often in the area of direct access broadcasting or political advertising. For example, when Italy first introduced private broadcasting the state broadcaster, RAI, continued with the existing system of free direct access broadcasting, while private broadcasters were allowed to carry paid advertising. These media also operated under a different regulator from the public media.
Venezuela similarly operates a system in which public media carry no paid advertising, but the private media do. Likewise, in the quite different, public-dominated Scandinavian broadcasting systems, the private media operate different rules on direct access.
Public Service Obligations in Certain Areas
Another common approach is to impose certain public service obligations on the private broadcast media as one of the terms of a broadcasting licence. This is the system that operates in the United Kingdom, for example. Thus a system of direct access programming that originated with the public service broadcaster is applied, without modification, to private broadcasters. In the UK these obligations apply to the older, terrestrial commercial channels but not to cable and satellite television.
Choice Whether to Assume Public Service Obligations
Also a popular approach is one that imposes no public service obligations on the private media. However, if the private broadcasters choose to run direct access slots, paid political advertising or voter education slots, then they must do this on the same terms as the public media
Role of the Regulator
Whichever of these options is taken, there is a role for the regulatory body in relation to any non-editorial material run by private media: that is, advertisements, direct access slots, voter education etc. The regulator will either be responsible for supervising adherence to any special rules affecting private media - if they follow the first option - or to general rules governing media (the second or third options). There does not exist the same basis for regulation of content in the private media as there is in the public. Hence the regulator will not intervene with the private media to ensure balanced news coverage. However, the private media are likely to be obliged to adhere to the same policies on hate speech and defamation, as well as being subject to a complaints procedure.
In principle a pluralism of ideas and political viewpoints is best maintained by having private media that are unfettered and able to go about their business without interference. The first responsibility of the regulatory body is to facilitate this. It is only when the private media behave in a manner that, through unfairness, obstructs the flow of information to the electorate, that the regulator will be empowered to intervene. And this will almost always apply in relation to non-editorial, rather than editorial, content.
