The importance that is attached to the role of the media in a democracy suggests that they act as the main source of information for most voters. But this assumption is not automatically true. Even in an advanced, media-saturated democracy like Britain, between one quarter and one third of television viewers are estimated to switch channels when a party election broadcast starts. There used to be a convention that all channels would screen these broadcasts simultaneously so that there was no escape for the audience, other than making themselves a cup of tea. Perhaps as a result, a survey in 1968 found that party election broadcasts were the main source of information for undecided voters. Since 1987, however, simultaneous broadcasts have been abandoned and the audience has declined. And a 1990 survey found that party broadcasts were the least believable source of political information, apart from the Sun newspaper.37
Before the rise of modern electronic media, political information was conveyed through the two mechanisms of the print media and direct personal contact. In those days newspaper readership was higher than today, but this still excluded a very large proportion of the population that was either too poor to afford a newspaper or that simply could not read. Hence direct personal communication assumed great importance. This would include public political meetings addressed by candidates or hustings, where the different candidates would debate and be questioned. It would also include door-to-door canvassing by the candidate or party activists, as well as leaflets and posters produced by the parties or candidates.
In industrialized countries with extensive electronic media, these methods have declined dramatically in importance. Elsewhere, however, the political meeting and personal contact with the candidates remains important. In rural Africa, for example, radio is usually the only accessible mass medium. The stations that broadcast to this rural audience are usually government-controlled and give little, if any, voice to opposition parties. Sometimes the obstacles to the communication of information are even more basic. Radio sets require batteries. These are expensive and unlikely to be a priority in communities that are on the breadline. So Personal contact remains important.
Yet, even in conditions of dire poverty the media still have a role in communicating political information. Even when rural communities do not have access to independent media, the information generated by, say, the private press will still go into general circulation and may reach the rural voters at some stage. So, although word of mouth may be the direct source of political information, the media will contribute importantly to the mass of information in circulation.
In rural Africa, like other parts of the world generally regarded as 'information-poor', the means for circulating information by mouth are quite sophisticated, and were often honed in the difficult conditions of colonialism and single-party or military dictatorship. Audiences became skilled at interpreting the highly controlled messages contained in the official media and relaying an alternative interpretation. They were assisted in this by cultural conventions allowing the oblique communication of sensitive information and views. For example, the Ngoni of Central Africa have a convention known as kukulawika - women's pounding songs that are able to convey explicit messages about sex, but without using obscenities. The Tonga have a similar mechanism. Under British colonial rule, African staff at the Central African Broadcasting Corporation in Lusaka would broadcast a type of political kukulawika, allowing them to convey hidden nationalist messages. This means of veiled political communication was especially useful during subsequent restrictive one-party rule.38
The informal communication of political news is often described, disparagingly and not entirely accurately, as rumour. Colonial administrators used to call it the 'bush telegraph', while French-speaking Africans have invented a rather better term: radio trottoir or 'pavement radio'. Whatever name it is given, there can be little doubt that millions of people the world over form their political opinions on the basis of their own experience and what they learn personally from those whom they trust. Much of this information may originate in the media, but how much is difficult to determine. How far the media influence the behaviour of voters remains a great imponderable.
In Zimbabwe, for example, in a referendum and election in 2000, a majority of voters rejected the advice being offered by the most important media. The state enjoyed a monopoly of all broadcast media, which were under tight government control. In a referendum on constitutional reform, and then in parliamentary elections, the opposition was given minimal access to radio and television and the editorial line of both was shrilly in favour of the ruling party. Yet in each poll a majority of voters favoured the opposition. Perhaps the critical information placed in circulation by the privately-owned press was influential. But ultimately many people's voting choices seem to have been determined by other factors. An independent media monitoring group even suggested that last-minute broadcast propaganda in favour of the government may have influenced marginal voters in the referendum to vote for the opposition. Unfortunately the quality of audience research is not good enough to allow a clear answer.39
Focus group studies in Ukraine suggest a similar popular scepticism towards the media, which were described as being 'not free' and therefore not enjoying the confidence of the citizens. They say that the media are 'short of analytical articles in the first place' and that the mass media play an 'insufficient' role in elucidating the issues in the campaign and preparing the public for the elections. The focus groups said that 'attempts of the mass media to shed light on political and economic developments in a timely and qualitative fashion cannot be successful'. See Where Do People Get Their Election Information? - Ukraine.40
Even in industrialized democracies where the media occupy a very important place as a source of a political information, the answer to this question of media influence is not clear. In Britain, for many years, the largest circulation newspaper, the Sun, supported the Conservative party, yet the majority of its mainly working class readership supported the Labour party. Of course, the paper may have influenced a marginal but potentially significant section of its readership to change their vote. In 1997, the Sun shifted its allegiance to Labour and claimed the credit when that party won - even though public opinion surveys and the size of the Labour majority showed that there were much broader factors at work. In fact the paper probably had a greater influence on the new government than on the electorate. Labour leaders were anxious to be on good terms with the Sun's owner, Rupert Murdoch - an indication of the new globalized order where media houses are also powerful multinational corporations.
More generally Britain provides an interesting case study of the political influence of the media. A large majority of the press supports the Conservative party. If its influence over the electorate were decisive then there would never be a Labour government. Things clearly do not work like that. Yet the indirect influence of the media is more difficult to assess. Arguably, they influence the political agenda by emphasizing issues that are of priority to the right wing, such as law and order and restricting immigration. Hence a Labour government may adopt more conservative policies because it believes that the media influence the electorate in that direction.
