Media monitoring involves collecting data and carrying out analysis of elections-related content of print, broadcast and online media, and presenting the results. As well as being a tool for regulation, media monitoring also provides broader benefits to an electoral process. These include evaluating the extent to which elections were fair in terms of freedom of expression by the media, voters and candidates; acting as an early warning system for elections-related violence; promoting the participation of women and minorities; and enhancing media literacy of elections officials and the public at large.

Despite the importance of media monitoring, it has only recently become standard practice in the management of elections. The importance of media monitoring in assessing electoral integrity and democratic development is highlighted by these quotes from observer missions:

Armenia 2012, OSCE / ODIHR

In many cases, TV channels broadcast in their news the same campaign material already used by contestants in paid political advertising, instead of relying on their own material…Such practices damage the credibility of media reporting, undermine the autonomy of the media from the political sphere, and weaken the diversity of media outlets. Where this occurred, the unclear distinction between news and political advertising deprived the viewers of independent reporting.[i]

Cambodia 2007, Comfrel

 The vast majority of political coverage [on state-owned media] (around 93%, equal to 167 hours 15 seconds) is dedicated to covering the activities of the Royal Government of Cambodia, including the Prime Minister. Additionally, [other than two specific programs funded by UNDP and the EMB] the state media do not appear to be open to parties other than the ruling political party: the great majority of political party airtime is dedicated to the CPP (about 82%). This unbalanced coverage made for an uneven playing field, meaning that other parties found it difficult to compete with the ruling party through the media. [ii]

Comfrel also noted minimal coverage of women in politics, and no coverage of disabled, youth or indigenous candidates in any media.[iii]

Nicaragua 2010, European Union EOM

The media…are not only reflecting the profound polarisation that characterises the Nicaraguan political scene, they are becoming active parts of this polarisation. The media appears to be one of the battlegrounds of the next political phase. The two main newspapers in Nicaragua, the dailies La Prensa and El Nuevo Diario, due to their historical importance and tradition, are the media dictating the media political agenda in the country.[iv]

Sudan 2010, SMEC

The number of hate speech cases and use of inflammatory language in the media increased significantly as Election Day approached, and continued after the election date, albeit with less intensity. While defamation of political actors was the main type of hate speech prior to the elections, calls for violence and accusations of electoral rigging were the main types of hate speech after Election Day. Both the political actors and the media were responsible for conjuring up hate speech.[v]

As these diverse examples from around the world demonstrate, media monitoring is key to understanding the quality of electoral processes.

What do media monitors do?

Media monitoring has become a common feature of elections since the mid-1990s. Monitoring usually uses "quantitative analysis" or "qualitative analysis" of media content, or both. The first is the least complicated and controversial, and often has the greatest impact. Quantitative analysis simply entails counting and measuring election coverage in the media - number and length of items devoted to different parties, length in column inches, timing and number of direct access programmes and so on. The amount of coverage each party or candidate receives is usually the first criterion that will be looked at in order to evaluate allegations of bias.

Qualitative analysis is, as the name suggests, an approach that measures the quality of the coverage that parties and candidates receive. This kind of analysis applies predominantly to news coverage, although it should also be applied to voter education. Qualitative analysis will look at language use in content as well the over all message conveyed by the content. Qualitative analysis will provide depth and context to quantitative findings.  For example, it may not be very useful to say that Party X has received a certain percentage of news coverage, if a large part of that coverage is biased in its content. Inevitably, the measurement of bias is more subjective than simply counting minutes, seconds or column inches accorded to each candidate.

Media monitoring organisations – be they national civil society groups, international or domestic observer teams, EMBs or others – now often use fairly similar methodologies. International NGOs, such as the European Institute for the Media, and national organizations, such as the Osservatorio di Pavia (Italy), MEMO98 (Slovakia), the Media Monitoring Project (South Africa), and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (United States) have popularized easy, effective and surprisingly subtle monitoring methodologies and created a large pool of people familiar with their use.

Media monitors usually focus on a combination of major television, radio and print. Recently some monitors have started to look at social media as well.

Who monitors the media?

Generally, three main groups undertake monitoring of the media during elections:

• Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs);

• International electoral observation missions

• Domestic observation groups and civil society organisations

Other bodies that monitor media during elections can include media peak bodies (such as Rwanda’s High Council of the Press[vi]), media regulatory bodies (such as the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa[vii]), and internal monitoring by media agencies themselves who are concerned with ensuring fair coverage.[viii] The publicly-funded Australian Broadcasting Commission, for example, sets up an Election Coverage Review Committee prior to each national election.  This Committee is made up of senior ABC managers, which meets weekly during the election period and gives input to editors on the ABC’s on-going performance and adherence to law and standards of elections reporting.[ix]

The purpose in each instance may be rather different. EMBs and media regulatory bodies will normally monitor the media in order to determine whether they have adhered to the regulations or laws governing media behaviour during elections. If they have a direct regulatory function, they will use their monitoring findings to make sure that media comply with the required standards and to warn or discipline media outlets if appropriate.

International observers are also concerned with media compliance with local rules and laws. However, they are also concerned with monitoring the contribution of media to a free and fair election, and ensuring that universal rights to freedom of expression are upheld. Observers have no powers of enforcement or interference however, and will adjust the timing and tone of their recommendations accordingly. International electoral observation missions contribute to media monitoring by including analysis of fair media coverage into their overall external assessments of the conduct of the elections.

Domestic observer groups and other civil society groups may have more leeway in how they they can monitor election coverage. These domestic bodies can utilize more varied or in-depth methodologies to determine different types of media bias. EMBs, by contrast, are often restricted to a simple analysis of the allocation of time to parties and candidates. Civil society monitors usually have a strong understanding of the local contexts, actors, languages and so on. Many have good networks with the domestic media and can communicate with them quickly and directly about their findings. For example, the civil society group Sudan Media and Elections Consortium published biweekly Media Monitoring results before, during and after the 2010 elections. This means that civil society monitoring can often be used as part of an effort to raise journalistic standards or to address other issues while the election campaign is still going on. Some organisations may be interested in specific issues such as hate speech, electoral violence, or the representation of women or minorities during elections, and focus on those issues.

Media peak bodies and media agencies will tend to focus their monitoring on ensuring balanced coverage in order to uphold the credibility of media outlets and the media sector as a whole, and to ensure adherence to the law.

The efforts of these different monitoring groups can be complementary, coordinated and even co-operative. In some cases, as in Malawi’s first multi-party election in 1994, an EMB may take notice of civil society media monitoring and use its powers to try to make media coverage fairer. In other instances, the EMB may hire a civil society or private monitoring group to be its eyes and ears. The Indonesian Election Supervisory Board, the government’s broadcasting regulator, and the independent Press Council cooperate directly by setting up a joint committee to carry out media monitoring. In the Ukrainian presidential elections of 2004 there was media monitoring from both intergovernmental groups and local human rights and media freedom organisations. Local observation groups published their findings regularly (as well as on a broader set of issues).  Their conclusions were bolstered by findings by international monitors.