In an age of multinational media corporations we are constantly persuaded to believe that we live in a 'global village' - a single, undifferentiated information society. Undoubtedly the flow of information through the media is greater and faster than it was, say, in the 1960s when the term 'global village' was coined - still more by comparison with the age before mass broadcasting. Nevertheless, access to information by the mass of people - and the mass of voters in particular - differs enormously according to the national context. Globalization of information no doubt affects the rural African, Asian, Latin American or East European. But it does not mean that they have the same information sources as a West European or North American, or indeed their own urban compatriots.
The media environment will largely determine the role that the media play in an election. And that environment in turn will be decided by a variety of factors. The first of these is the level of economic development. In situations of severe poverty, most people will be unable to afford newspapers and probably unable to read them either. Often televisions will be prohibitively expensive and ownership and audience will be almost exclusively urban. Some of the poorest countries, such as Malawi and Tanzania, have only very recently established national television networks. Radio is likely to be the most important national medium of communication in these circumstances. But even so it is likely to be constrained by shortage of advertising revenue. A higher level of economic development is likely to mean a greater number of media outlets. Increasingly this even overrides the significance of constraints of political control over the media.
Economic development in turn may influence the ownership structure of the media. As a general pattern, poorer countries, including most in Africa, will tend to have a larger governmental media sector, because of the shortage of advertising. Independent media in these countries are likely to be owned by small, private business interests. In the larger economies of regions like Latin America, East Asia and Central and Eastern Europe, media houses are more likely to be under the control of substantial national businesses (that are also likely to have political interests). Increasingly media in these countries and in the most industrialized countries fall under the control of multinational media companies, which again are likely to have their own political inclinations.
But wealth is not the only factor determining the structure of media ownership. Political and cultural traditions play a large part. Most European countries, for example, have a strong tradition of state or public ownership of broadcasting. See Public/State Media. France only legalized private broadcasting in the 1980s. The United States, by contrast, has almost no history of publicly owned broadcasting. Not surprisingly, countries with a history of military or single-party rule may have developed their own tradition of state control of the media. Clearly, the extent to which the government or public authorities are involved in owning or controlling the media is likely to have a direct impact on the role of the media in elections.
Another critical dimension of the media environment is the strength of the traditions of political freedom and respect for freedom of expression. Media with a long history of pluralism, freedom and independence will have developed a greater capacity to deal with political issues in a frank and forthright manner. They will also probably have developed higher professional standards (although the low ethics of some media in advanced democracies show that the correlation is not an exact one). Most importantly, a recent 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. See History of Respect for Media Freedom?.
The media environment is also to some degree a legal environment. Preferably the media will operate under the protection of strong constitutional and statutory guarantees of freedom of expression and access to information. See Journalism Training. Legal traditions differ greatly in this area. Common law countries tend towards an approach marked by an absence of explicit laws regulating the media. The assumption is that the media are free to do whatever is not explicitly prohibited by law. The civil law tradition, by contrast, usually requires statutory regulation of media activity. There are strengths and weaknesses in both approaches, although in practice they are tending to converge. Broadcasting is one area where differing legal traditions are seeking to find common solutions. Almost all countries demand some form of statutory regulation of broadcasting, even the traditionally unregulated United States, as a way of ensuring pluralism over the airwaves. 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. See Existing Media Regulatory Frameworks.
