Election Campaigns, Balance, and the Mass Media

This 23-page document describes and analyses the role of media in elections in four democracies and societies in transition: Mexico, Turkey, Russia, and Kenya. The document is part of the publication of papers for a conference on “The Role of the News Media in the Governance Reform Agenda", which was co-sponsored by the World Bank Communication for Governance and Accountability Program (CommGAP) and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Boston, United States (US).

Because mass media are the most common source for information about election campaigns in democracies and societies in transition around the world, the author argues that concerns about political bias in the mass media are at the heart of debates about the roles and responsibilities of the media at election time, due to the possibility that the media will, intentionally or unintentionally, influence the electorate. Moreover, where voting is not mandatory, the press may be used by political parties to either stimulate turnout or to repress turnout to accomplish their goals. In addition, as in the case of Kenya in 2007, there may be links or perceived links between the media and increased election violence.

Election reporting presents the problem of balance because, as the author frames the dilemma, if "...the principle of balance in reporting on contending parties and candidates is strictly adhered to, then it conflicts with the journalistic principle of objectivity which drives story selection." Content analysis, over time, including visibility and tone, and party access to the public via the news, among other measures, can reveal increasing or decreasing political party access to journalists and the inclusion or exclusion of a wider variety of sources in election reporting.

In transitional situations, particularly where one party or an autocracy has held power, the author argues that balanced coverage among all parties becomes critical to the election process. In the case of Kenya, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) contracted independent media monitoring during the 2007 election period, resulting in regular assessments of media content. "The media monitoring operation specifically aimed to influence journalists, editors and media owners to provide accurate, impartial and fair reporting, and to encourage adherence to professional standards by journalists." Because Kenya’s code of "conduct and practice of journalism" provides guidelines on a number of issues to ensure free, fair, and accurate coverage of election campaigns, there was a professional basis for judging journalistic behaviour. The conclusion of the media monitoring research was that there was bias in all media in terms of providing a balance of candidate visibility, though there was, according to the content analysis, accuracy in the election coverage. Hate speech was monitored and found present in live coverage (but had been censored from prepared and pre-recorded speeches.) An initial gender study showed a lack of coverage of women candidates, along with biased press statements. Gender bias was later denied by the same monitoring organisation, according to the author. As violence increased due to losses during the nomination process, blame and negative reporting increased, and was possibly further precipitated, as stated here, by the media releasing preliminary results. The author cites "a need for a stronger regulatory framework governing elections in Kenya that can also exert some influence over access to television and radio."

Recommendations by the monitoring organisation in this case were:

1. The free air time granted to candidates should be made available during prime time.
2. Paid political advertising should be regulated and clearly labelled, accompanied by financial transparency to ensure equality among contestants.
3. Publicly funded broadcasting organisations and print media should serve the public and not the political forces.
4. There should be a clear separation between election programmes and other programmes that are not about the campaign, and the latter should not be used to promote political parties and candidates.

According to the document, Mexico has a history of independent publications intended to increase readership and form a Fourth Estate, wresting power from government and party control. These publications gained financial autonomy and by the late 1990's were part of all media markets in the country. As stated here, privatisation of the government-owned television channel and autonomy of the Federal Election Institute (IFE), as well as “bottom-up” work by broadcast journalists, opened broadcast media to balanced news coverage by 1997. The first opposition party president elected in 2000 brought "changes in the news media and in the laws and practices governing free expression and freedom of information legislation which opened most areas of government to external scrutiny." In 2001, President Fox launched “e-Mexico" to have the internet provide more access to government information.

Research on the 2000 presidential elections found more balance in the privately owned media than the publicly owned media. In the 2006 election, media research found some bias, based on attempts to attract candidate advertising. Legislation, Article 79-A of the Ley Televisa, was then introduced in 2007, which curbed the amount of public funds provided to the parties, each of which gets IFE federal funding. In addition, "parties will not be permitted to purchase time on television or radio with these funds, but they will receive substantial free advertising time during campaigns", time which may not be transferred to outside groups. The law prohibits negative campaigning in the media. The new laws are being transferred into specific regulations which will be tested in future elections.

The author states that Russians voted in both 2007 and in 2008, overwhelmingly for one party, mirroring consensus of the Russian media. The pattern of journalist self-censorship to communicate the information of the ruling party has continued since the czarist era. She argues that he economic pressures of the 1990's crises opened the journalistic culture to the forces of corruption. Research states that journalists see themselves as political players rather than watchdogs. A 2002 law on media practices in duma (representative assembly) elections has had little influence on changing media practices or on the journalistic culture of power serving, according to this document. However, "the public votes and the citizens appear to trust state-controlled television news in large numbers, when there is evidence of overwhelming bias in the news at election time."

As stated here, the Republic of Turkey has at times experienced a critical press in a Fourth Estate role and at other times a censored press subject to fines and closure and legislation designed to limit the media’s role in reporting. Present-day media concentration of ownership is blamed by media analysts for limited content diversity, but government subsidies to expand newspapers have reportedly diminished both critical reporting on corruption and press credibility. Private broadcast ownership was not legalised until 1993, though it had entered the country via satellite in 1990. The internet has grown over the last decade. The Supreme Council of Radio and Television is appointed to monitor and regulate broadcast media and apply sanctions when it observes a violation of the law, particularly applied to subjects such as the military, Kurds, and political Islam. According to the document, due to a desire for European Union membership, state-run Kurdish language broadcasts have been established. The author points out that the shift to a ruling Islamist party in 2002 brought the possibility of a path to one-party Islamist rule. The 2007 election media content analysis showed higher visibility of the ruling party than other parties, among the media sources analysed, though the heightened exposure was generally cast in a negative tone by the major newspapers. The quality of the analysis showed that Turkey, like Mexico, "appear[s] to have all the mechanisms in place to study and assess the contents, uses and impacts of the mass media in election campaigns."