One measure of quality election reporting is impartiality. Impartial reporting is closely related to accuracy. Accurate reporting is a precondition to impartiality; however, it is not a sufficient alone. One-sided reporting that conveys the position of a favoured party or candidate without reporting alternative positions is biased election coverage. A news story that includes different points of view is always going to be a stronger and more balanced one.

It is sometimes a challenge for media to establish balance within a particular story. For example, a journalist may be assigned to a particular party campaign and will not have opportunity to seek comment from other parties. In such cases, editors are responsible to make sure that different party positions on the same issue are reported.  This is done by compiling composite stories or by running parallel stories that portray the different positions.

One characteristic of impartial election coverage is separation of fact and comment. In other words, if a journalist or editor expresses his or her own opinion, it should be labelled as such. This applies even to campaign journalism. A media outlet may endorse a candidate, party, or political position however they impartial election coverage obliges coverage still be accurate, even when such accuracy may undermine that endorsement. This ethical obligation lies with individual journalists and editors, as well as with higher management of a media outlet.

So is it ethical for journalists and editors to voice opinions? Generally speaking, credible newspapers – both print and online – will often have opinion sections in which editors and others make statements of their views, often clearly in favour of a particular party or candidate. According to an NDI media monitoring manual, “[i]n many countries, there are a large number of private newspapers and magazines that present a wide variety of political views. Political parties may even print and distribute newspapers to present their views”[i] none of which is fundamentally unethical so long as readers know the source of the content and are provided with a range of options and perspectives. For example, the highly respected international news magazine The Economist frequently endorses a particular candidate, for example Barack Obama in the US in 2008 and Nicolas Sarkozy in France in 2012.

When it comes to bias, expectations differ for public media (particularly public radio and television stations) and print media. Public broadcast media is usually expected to provide a wider range of views and less editorial content. This is because public media are owned by the public, often have a large national audience, and can be quite influential, particularly in contexts where audiences have limited choices, including limited access to new media.

Finally, an important measure of journalists’ impartiality is that they do not hold prominent office in any political party or movement. Journalists are as entitled as anyone else to political beliefs and loyalties, however any work-related affiliation to politics will compromise a journalist's credibility as an impartial chronicler of events.

It goes without saying that the acceptance of bribes is neither responsible nor impartial journalism.  Yet this topic warrants special attention due to the prevalence of bribery in electoral processes and in journalism in general. While “cash for coverage” may be a conventional form of bribery, other forms exist that do not involve exchanges of money.  These other manifestations of bribery may be subtle, such as provision of transportation, resources, or gifts.

Here are a few examples of media bribery. These have been drawn directly from a report by the Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), Cash for Coverage: Bribery of Journalists Around the World:

In South Africa, a journalist admitted in an affidavit that he and several others had set up a media relations firm that received cash payments for helping an African National Congress official in his struggles with party rivals…he described receiving payments of 5,000-10,000 South African Rand…He understood, he said, that he “could not write negative reports about [the candidate] or his allies.”

[…] In Lebanon, “the practice of ‘gifting’ journalists remains widespread… “Certain politicians have a budget for bribes. Depending on your rank and the media you work for, it could be a car or a laptop.” [ii]

It is poor practice for journalists to accept any form of inducement in exchange for writing favourable reports of politicians or prominent individuals. Just as equally, promising negative or no coverage of opposing candidates is also unethical. Some of the ways in which cash-strapped media organisations have tried to overcome the problem of inducement are through: enforcing strict hiring and firing policies that prohibit journalists from receiving bribes; providing ethics training for all staff members; providing non-salary incentives to compensate poorly-paid journalists (for example training programmes and other professional development); advocacy for investment in, and donor funding of, media and media development. In addition, press councils and media ombudsman can uphold a code of ethics that contains measures for sanctioning journalists who accept bribes.  Furthermore, stakeholders are beginning to increase advocacy for salary transparency within the media sector.  Overall, international advocacy and recognition of the seriousness and pervasiveness of bribery of media has increased substantially in recent years.