Media is everywhere. There are hundreds of thousands of traditional (broadcast and print) media outlets across the globe. In Russia alone, there were 35,000 registered newspapers in 2010 and roughly 10,000 radio and TV stations by 2004.[i] The growth of the Internet, satellite transmission, and mobile phone services has rendered it impossible to gauge the true extent of media outlet proliferation. Furthermore, new media, such as blogging, the social media networks and so forth have added an expansive dimension of what media means today and who has access to it. 

In this age of media diversity and reach it is easy to assume therefore that we live in a "global village" - a single, undifferentiated information society. Nevertheless, access to information by people - and voters in particular - differs enormously depending on national and subnational contexts.  Across the globe, aspects such as politics (both current and historical), media literacy, access to electricity, wealth, geographic location, and culture all contribute to the wide array of national-level media landscapes.    The nature of the media landscape will largely determine the nuances of the role that the media play in an election. These nuances include reach, political inclinations, and tendencies to set the terms of political debate.

Media mapping is important for most election stakeholders, in order to understand what media is available, what its strengths and weaknesses are, and who has access to it. A thorough media mapping exercise for a given country need do more than look at local media: it needs to at least attempt to account for the vast array of media that streams in from international sources. An examination of presence and coverage of media is also not enough.  A proper analysis also needs to account for the affect that characteristics such as ownership, wealth, political history, legal framework, and culture have on the dynamics of a media landscape.  A comprehensive understanding of the many layers and nuances of media landscape is particularly important for the implementation of democratic elections. According to one analyst, “[…] access to accurate and objective information is more important than ever for a healthy democracy to flourish. This access is crucial to improve conditions for trust among citizens, media, and state, and to implement and sustain the governance agenda.”[ii]

One of the most pivotal influences to media landscapes is wealth and economic prosperity.  This affects both ownership and reach of media.  For example, in an area where there is little opportunity for advertising revenue, there is often a dearth of independent local media unless funding is provided directly from external sources, for example from wealthy individuals or donors.  Often independent (private) media will be concentrated around urban areas with little to no reach beyond them.    Although decreasingly so, there are still areas of the world where the only national media that is available in rural areas is state or government media.  The term ‘digital divide’ has been coined to refer to inequalities between populations in terms of access to modern media.

Increasingly media throughout the world, except in the poorest countries, fall under the control of multinational media companies.  Access to multinational media companies is also on the rise, often despite matters of economics.   For example in Afghanistan prior to 2002, access to broadcast media was limited to a network of state owned outlets except for a smattering of multinational AM radio stations such as BBC and Voice of America (VoA).  Over the course of the next ten years, the landscape had altered dramatically, with a flourish of independent and private national broadcasters.  Yet, even in areas where there is still little reach of national media, access to multinational media via satellite has, in varying degrees, altered access to information.

However, wealth is not the only factor which influences layout of media presence. Political and cultural traditions are also a significant determinant. Most European countries, for example, have a strong tradition of state or public ownership of broadcasting. France only legalized private broadcasting in the 1980s. Not surprisingly, countries with a history of military or single-party rule may have developed their own tradition of state control of the media.  During the 1960’s and 70’s private media in Latin America was often associated with military dictatorships.  A country’s historical context of media affects audience trust tendencies, which in turn influences listenership/readership.  This has the potential to either encourage or discourage the development of certain types of media. 

Another critical dimension of the media environment is the strength of the traditions and legal framework of political freedom and respect for freedom of expression. Preferably the media will operate under the protection of strong constitutional and statutory guarantees of freedom of expression and access to information. For example, the extent to which the allocation of broadcasting frequencies is a fair and transparent process is likely to have a significant influence on how the broadcasters discharge their responsibilities at election time. Similarly, a history of censorship or physical intimidation of the media is likely to loom as a constant threat over journalists and editors in their election coverage.

Access to international media can also be greatly affected by the legal policies of a country.  The North Korean government, for example, has been successful in remaining almost entirely isolated from the international media scene.  There is currently (2012) no broadband data network in the country, and Internet satellite receivers are not permitted except in extremely controlled circumstances or for government and elite use.  

Countries with economic prosperity, a history of pluralism, freedom of expression and independence will have had the opportunity to cultivate diverse and stable media as well. Professional standards may also be higher (although the sometimes weak ethics of media in advanced democracies show that the correlation is not an exact one). Most importantly, the combinations influences and histories will set the stage as to how effectively and fairly the media will be able to cover an election. 

Understanding the media landscape of a given country also includes understanding how people use media. As well as the availability of media, there are other factors at play, such as people’s personal preferences, work location and routines, overall trust in news sources as well as general media literacy. Two brief examples from the developing world show what wide variation there can be in terms of how people get information. A study conducted by Altai in 2010 in Afghanistan found that only 13 percent of the population turned to the printed press for information.  This low percentage was a result of literacy levels and access.[iii] A study in 2012 in Nigeria found that while radio usage was generally the same in rural and urban areas, and that 4 out of every 10 respondents said they listened to the radio on their mobile phones within the week prior to the survey, more urban residents watched TV in a given week than rural residents.[iv] These differences distinguish one country’s media usage patterns from another, and affect media usage during elections. In addition to, and in some instances instead of, electronic or print media, direct personal communication remains greatly important in election campaigns and processes.

Yet, even in these instances, the media still have an important role in communicating political information. Even when rural communities do not have direct access to independent media, the information generated by the press will still go into general circulation and may reach the rural voters at some stage. “Information gatekeepers” may themselves rely on media as a source of news and will therefore pass on what they glean from the press.  Therefore, although word of mouth may be the direct source of political information in some instances, the media will likely contribute importantly to the mass of information in circulation.

Audience analysis is often quickly out-dated however, as preferences and access change so rapidly in today’s media environment. A study by the Pew Research Center in the US in 2008, for example, found that there was an almost two fold jump in Internet news consumption, from 24% to 40%, in just one year.[v]

General news consumption does not translate cleanly into election-related news consumption.   For example, a report issued in 2006 exploring global audience reaction to and affinity for political campaign ads found that “political advertising is the most derided form of political communication.”[vi]

While popularity of political advertisements may be low, there are indications that people turn to specific media for their general election information.  The impact of social media on voters’ choices is the latest area of intense research focus.  One study found that of the 82% of U.S. adults who are social media users, 51% will use social media to learn more about the candidates of the U.S. presidential 2012 elections.[vii] What is difficult to ascertain of course, is to what degree this ‘learning’ actually changes vote choices. 

Image:

Ghana's election on the BBC by bbcworldservice is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic License.