The media cannot cover elections properly if they are unable to gain access to relevant events and places. This is obvious enough, but unfortunately many countries that are embarking on democratic elections for the first time may have little experience of the culture of media freedom. The purpose of laws or regulations on the media in elections - and the function of the regulatory body - is to create an environment in which the media can go about their business freely. Election campaigns are not state secrets to be winkled out by dedicated investigative journalists; rather they should be conducted in the public eye. There is thus an argument of principle that journalists should be given the fullest access to election events. But for the body organizing the election there is also a pragmatic consideration. If the media are present at all relevant events, then it will be much easier for the electoral administration to convey its messages and concerns to the public.
In order to ensure access to some aspects of the election - for example, the count - it will be necessary for the electoral administration to operate some form of Accreditation. In principle, however, this should not be necessary for all events, since the ultimate responsibility for determining who is or is not a journalist should lie with the relevant professional bodies, not the state.
It is important that access should be non-discriminatory. It would be unacceptable, for example, if journalists from certain media organs were excluded from rallies by certain political parties. It should be an explicit element of the parties' code of conduct that they allow free access of all media to all their public events (see Measures to Protect Journalists). It would be worse, however, if the electoral authorities themselves were to exercise any discrimination in which media were given briefing materials or invited to a press conference.
This right of access by journalists flows directly from the freedom of information principles that underlie the role of the media in a democracy (see Media and Democracy). Accreditation procedures cannot be used to limit this access, either by being applied in a discriminatory manner or by being made a universal requirement for attendance at all election-related activities. Except in very limited circumstances when the security of the election process is at stake, accreditation is an administrative tool, not a principled means of determining who may or may not report on the election.
Freedom of information means, among other things, that the media are entitled to investigate and report critically on the efficiency and probity of election organization. This may not always be welcomed by election administrators, but essentially they have no choice on this matter. This scrutiny is not an interference with the organization of the election but facilitates and ensures efficiency. This is true as a matter of broad principle, but also as a matter of practicality. If the media have good access to those organizing the elections, then they will convey their concerns rapidly to the public. This functions as an effective, no-cost method of voter education.
