State ownership of the media imposes particular challenges on voter educators, especially those working in transitional situations. This section examines these challenges. Media ownership issues are also discussed in Structure of Media Ownership.
State regulation of media is a two-edged sword: it can enhance or limit educational programmes.
Ownership
In some countries, some or all of the mass media are owned or controlled by the state.
State ownership, and hence state control over the policy and content of the particular medium, is diminishing as the tendency toward privatization or at least commercialization or joint ownership increases. Nevertheless, there are many countries where television, radio, and/or national newspapers are state owned.
Control of the media can, of course, go much further. Legislation can prohibit or inhibit media diversity through a number of measures, from limiting access to resources, including broadcast channels, and heavy penalties for coverage of particular stories, to direct and gross censorship.
Public Perception of the State
For voter educator, the problem is not necessarily state ownership or control of a particular medium that is required to spread the voter education message, unless educators find they cannot get access to these media at all. Rather, the problem lies in the perception that citizens have toward the media when it is perceived as the state’s mouthpiece because it is owned or largely controlled by the state.
Regimes have an interest in remaining in power, and the media provides them an opportunity to communicate and manage the messages that can provide support, or undermine, their support amongst voters. All contestants in an election will make use of the media if they can, and when the election playing field is particularly uneven, there will be attempts to create fairness in media coverage. The state can even control this negotiated access if it has the ability to set the fees for access.
If voter educators are faced with a situation in which the majority of voters distrust messages received from state -owned or controlled media, or one where the state does not allow the election management body to prepare messages that are perceived to weaken support for the existing regime, they have a problem.
This was the situation in South Africa before the 1994 elections. In this situation, voter educators proposed and had accepted a consortium that prepared and ran all voter education messages on the national state-owned television and radio stations. Voters saw or heard a statement from this consortium that differentiated it from the various news and current affairs programmes prepared by the broadcaster itself.
In other situations the election management bodies develop communication identities, so that the level of trust in their messages can increase as voters understand the difference between these messages and the state mouthpiece they might have come to distrust.
Advantages of State-Owned Media
At the same time, if negative public perceptions and censorship are not a concern, state-owned media may have certain advantages relative to commercial stations that the educator may want to consider. First, state-owned media may be required by law to provide free-airtime to the election management body and perhaps even civil society organisations to air voter education messages and related public service announcements. Depending upon the development of the country's media infrastructure, state-owned media may also have far greater reach, both in terms of population and geography, than private broadcasters. They also may be more likely to broadcast in areas where poorer strata of the population reside than commercially oriented media outlets.
Working Outside an Election Period
Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to establish this same differentiation in messages when conducting general civic education programmes. Given that these are designed to increase commitment to democracy and civic participation, messages have to be created and broadcast in an open environment. This does not always exist. When it does not exist, there is some evidence to suggest the messages will be tainted with the same brush as messages that are putting out the state’s point of view.
Regulation
States can develop regulations that enhance election campaigns. They are able to limit private media monopolies, ensuring more political persuasions have a voice. They can also provide free airtime under controlled conditions in the private media or in state-owned media. This may be particularly important if election management bodies or civil society organisations are not in a position to pay for broadcasting.
In general, media regulation and the role of the state is a complicated and increasingly important area for those involved in elections. For more on this topic see Law or Regulations on Media During Elections
