In recent years there has been an increase in the number of civic groups undertaking monitoring of the media - a practice that was virtually unknown before the 1980s. The aim of this is to monitor how well the media - especially the publicly funded media - adhere to the guidelines agreed by the relevant supervisory body, to general standards of fairness, or to some other set of criteria developed by the civic groups themselves. The practice of media monitoring has been seen especially in transitional elections in Eastern Europe and Africa.
If it is well done, media monitoring can be a very practical way of non-governmental groups contributing to the fairness and success of elections. At the minimum the published findings of media monitors may influence the quality of media coverage. Sometimes, as in Mozambique in 1994, the dialogue between monitors and journalists may go a step further. The news room of Radio Mozambique used to hold a weekly meeting to discuss the monitors' observations, decide whether they agreed with them or not and make plans for improvements. The improvement in the balance of radio coverage - away from heavy bias to the ruling party - was measurable over the campaign period. In other cases, as in Malawi in 1994, the electoral supervisory body (the Electoral Commission in that case) may take note of the monitors' findings and use their powers to try to make media coverage fairer. And in other cases, as in South Africa in 1999, the supervisory body may hire a non-governmental monitoring group to be its eyes and ears.
The intellectual origins of media monitoring are to be found in the development of academic media studies, such as the work of the Glasgow Media Group. Academic media analysis, which is primarily geared to the sophisticated media of developed industrial societies, tends to focus in large measure on what it calls 'discourse analysis'. This is primarily concerned with the hidden messages conveyed by the language selected - or the visual language of television and the subtle or subliminal impact that these can have on the viewer's understanding or interpretation of a subject. Discourse analysis is certainly an element of media monitoring in elections. But usually the emphasis will be on two other standards that are easier to apprehend and then to measure. These are usually described as 'quantitative analysis' and 'qualitative analysis'. The first is the simplest, the least controversial and often has the greatest impact. It simply entails counting and measuring election coverage in the media - number and length of items devoted to different parties, length in column inches, timing and number of direct access programmes and so on. The amount of coverage each party or candidate receives is usually the first criterion that will be looked at in order to evaluate allegations of bias.
'Qualitative analysis' is, as the name suggests, an approach that measures the quality of the coverage that parties and candidates receive. This applies primarily to news coverage, although it should also be applied to voter education. A qualitative evaluation will look at the language used and the message conveyed - not the hidden messages of discourse analysis - and use this to 'qualify' the quantitative measure. It may not be very useful to say that Party X has received a certain percentage of news coverage, if a large part of that coverage is biased in its content. Inevitably the measurement of bias is more subjective than simply counting the minutes, seconds or column inches accorded to each candidate. But there are ways of minimizing potential bias on the part of the monitor. One is to count and attribute the sources of a story.
Some media monitoring projects have their origins in initiatives by international NGOs, such as the European Institute for the Media in Central and Eastern Europe and ARTICLE 19, primarily in Africa. Sometimes these international initiatives are carried out in partnership with local groups. They will, of course, always require local personnel, since understanding of local languages and politics is an essential qualification for a media monitor.
Media monitoring projects that involve local groups are likely to have a more activist approach, trying to improve the quality of media coverage as the election campaign progresses. This will usually mean that the project reports its findings to the public on a regular basis before the elections. Other projects may not publish conclusions until the election is over. Their aim would be rather to contribute to an overall evaluation of whether the election was free and fair.
It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of media monitoring since its purpose may vary. Some of the factors that determine the effectiveness of monitoring may be beyond its control. In Malawi in 1994, for example, the media monitoring project contributed to a measurable improvement in balance on the state broadcaster in the course of the campaign. In 1999 - after five years of democratic governance - a similar project had little impact. The difference was that in 1994 there was a strong independent Electoral Commission that was prepared to act on the project's findings, whereas five years later there was not. But this did not mean that media monitoring was a waste of time. The project's final report contained valuable evidence of government manipulation of the media, which was used by the opposition in a legal challenge to the election results. See Media Monitoring - Malawi.
For media monitoring methodology, see ARTICLE 19: Media Monitoring Manual.
