Anda di halaman 1dari 14

Media and Election Coverage

Elections can be a key element either in both conflict resolution and conflict escalation. Therefore, free and fair elections are essential for democracy consolidation and conflict prevention. The professionalism of media is crucial during election periods. To promote fair, safe and professional media election coverage, UNESCO supports advocacy to encourage full, fair and efficient disclosure of information to journalists covering the elections; training to enhance professional election reporting; training on the safety of journalists and their right to work without threat; and the production and distribution of election guidelines reflecting principles of professional reporting during elections, journalists' rights, election processes and safety information, as well as briefing notes on international human rights law with emphasis on freedom of expression. To learn more about UNESCOs specific activities on media and election coverage in post-conflict areas all over the world, please click on the relevant links below.

Home Media and Elections A Handbook Media and Indian Elections

Media and Indian Elections


By Paranjoy Guha Thakurta India would not be able to describe itself as the worlds largest democracy without the existence of an independent media. The mass media in India often reflects the diversity and plurality of the country, especially when general elections take place. At the same time, since much of the media is privately owned and driven by profit motives, commercial compulsions can and do sometimes distort the free and fair dissemination of information. This is especially true during periods of economic slowdown, when advertising revenues are down. Close to 60,000 publications of various kinds in various languages are currently registered with the Registrar of Newspapers of India (RNI), which functions under the Indian governments Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. An estimated 1900 large daily newspapers are published in the country over 40 per cent of them in Hindi, less than 10 per cent in English and the other half in dozens of other languages and dialects. The Indian press includes a mind-boggling variety of publications, ranging from neighbourhood free-sheets, to school magazines, to mass circulation dailies like the Times of India (TOI), which claims to be the most widely circulated English-language daily in the world. A number of non-English Indian dailies individually sell more copies every day than the TOI. Till the early 1990s, television viewers in India could only watch programmes broadcast by the state-owned Doordarshan (now part of the Prasar Bharati Corporation). Barely a decade later, they have access to hundreds of television channels from all over the world, most of them privately owned. In 1995, barely 20 million television set owning households in the country had cable and satellite connections. This number has since gone up five-fold to around 100 million households.

The first India-based private television channel to enter the news space, Zee News, began operations somewhat tentatively in 1994. At present, India is the only country in the world with over four dozen 24-hour television channels that broadcast news and current affairs programmes in over a dozen languages, including nearly 20 channels in the most widely spoken language: Hindi. Although private radio stations have also entered the scene over the past decade, they are at present not allowed to broadcast news and current affairs programmes. So the state-owned All India Radio (also part of the Prasar Bharati Corporation) is currently the sole source of news relayed on radio. Elections constitute an important feature of democracy. It is, therefore, imperative that the news media disseminate among the electorate accurate and fair reports on the campaigns of the contesting parties and candidates. The freedom of the media in this context depends, to a large measure, on journalists conducting themselves with a sense of responsibility and impartiality. In an effort to help the media adhere to the principle of fair and objective reporting of elections, the Press Council of India has formulated the following guidelines for the print media that are to be observed during elections:

It is the duty of the press to provide objective reports about elections and candidates. Newspapers are not expected to indulge in unhealthy election campaigns, exaggerated reports about any candidate/party or incident during the elections. While reporting on the actual campaign, a newspaper may not leave out any important point raised by a candidate or attack his or her opponent. Election campaigns conducted along communal or caste lines are banned under the law relating to elections. The press should eschew reports that tend to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between people on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language. The press should refrain from publishing false or critical statements with regard to the personal character and conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of candidature of any candidate that could prejudice the prospects of that candidate in the elections. The press should not publish unverified allegations against any candidate/party. The press should not accept any kind of inducement, financial or otherwise, to project a candidate/party. It should not accept hospitality or other facilities offered to them by or on behalf of any candidate/party. The press should not indulge in canvassing for a particular candidate/party. If it does, it must allow the right of reply to other candidates/parties. The press should not accept/publish any advertisement promoting the achievements of a party/government in power at the cost of (the) public exchequer during the period when the Election Commissions model code of conduct is in force. The press should observe all the directions/orders/instructions of the Election Commission, the chief electoral officer or returning officers that are issued from time to time. The implicit contract between the mass media and the functioning of democracy underpins journalists claims for a substantial degree of autonomy. A healthy democracy requires, among other things, the participation of informed citizens. One of the roles of the media is to enhance the level of public participation by providing information and analyses on a range of political, economic, social and other issues. Although the mass media play an essential role in the formation of public opinion and personal choices, most media organisations are commercial enterprises which seek readers, listeners or viewers, advertisements, a favourable regulatory environment, and other advantages. This creates certain intrinsic conflicts between medias social obligations and commercial considerations that can and often does result in a compromise on ethical standards. The concepts of democracy and of the market are both built on the principle of individual choice, but the principles governing the evaluation of choice in the two instances are fundamentally different. There is a danger that those who have accumulated wealth in the market will use it to exert influence over decisions that should be governed by

democratic principles. Accordingly, the defining and policing of the boundaries between the market and democracy is a perennial problem in modern liberal societies. Media institutions face particular dilemmas because they represent a key element of an effective democracy while being, for the most part, commercial entities seeking success in the market by maximising profits. There is an oftstated concern that the commercial activities and market interests of media institutions might distort the role they play in the formation of public opinion and, consequently, in upholding democracy. Conversely, there is concern that favourable coverage of those in positions of power and authority by the media, motivated by commercial reasons, might influence the decisions made by these people. A widespread problem is the attempt to influence public debate through the purchase of advertising space and the purchase of (favourable) editorial comment. Although quality newspaper editors try to erect a firewall between journalists and buyers of advertising space, in some sections of newspapers and magazines the wall has many convenient access doors. Those seeking the legal or ethical regulation of the media often face flat denials of the existence of such a problem. They are often asked to prove that media corporations have misused their capacity to influence public opinion by favouring particular candidates, supporting certain policies or following a single line of argument. Such actions are difficult to prove because they are, by nature, not transparent or open. As already stated, India is the worlds largest democracy: roughly 70 per cent of the countrys population of over one billion is eligible to vote and close to 60 per cent of the electorate actually exercises their franchise. The size of the electorate for the 15th general elections held in April-May 2009 was 714 million. India is also one of the most heterogeneous and plural nation-states in the world, divided as it is along lines of class, caste, race, region, religion and language. Voters spread across the length and breadth of the vast Indian subcontinent from the icy heights of the Himalayas in the north and the dense forests of Arunachal Pradesh in the north-east to the deserts of Rajasthan in the west and the emerald isles of Lakshwadeep in the Arabian Sea and the Andamans in the Bay of Bengal elected 543 representatives to the lower house of Parliament (known as the Lok Sabha or house of the people). Elections in India are amazing not merely on account of the incredible logistics involved. In the weeks leading to the polls, thousands of candidates conduct colourful, boisterous campaigns: elections are serious business but, in India, they involve fun and games as well. Large sums of money are spent on attracting the attention of potential voters through banners, posters, hoardings and advertisements; through loudspeakers, road-shows and public rallies and, of course, heated debates on television news channels. Just about every trick in the trade is deployed to woo the voter. During election season the proverbial poor, illiterate masses are suddenly made to feel important as they are cajoled, persuaded, bribed or, even, browbeaten to vote for one candidate or the other. High drama, song and dance, tall claims, unrealistic promises, defection, desertion and corrupt practices all mesh together in a unique and spectacular kaleidoscope of election-related events, the likes of which are not witnessed anywhere in the world on such a massive scale. While covering the 15th general elections in India, the media reflected the plurality of Indian society to a large extent. Even publications and television channels that generally focus on news and views that interest the upper classes had

to perforce attempt to ascertain the mood of the electorate as a whole. Not only does every man and woman above the age of 18 have a vote, irrespective of his or her economic, social or educational status, in India the poor and the underprivileged exercise their franchise in larger numbers than the middle and upper classes. The fact that the 2009 elections were held in the heat, dust and humidity of summer meant that a large proportion of the affluent sections of the population stayed away from polling booths despite widespread attempts by and through the mass media to convince people of the importance of actively participating in the democratic process and to urge them to go out and vote. While covering elections, the Indian media tend to focus more on personalities than on issues. This creates the incorrect impression that matters such as the state of the economy do not matter much to ordinary voters. Yet, during the 2009 general election in India, there were more than enough indications that job losses related to the shrinking of export markets during the global recession and high food prices were important issues affecting the lives of the majority of Indians. The two largest political parties of the country, the Indian National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, competed with each other in promising subsidised rice and wheat to those living below the poverty line in their respective campaigns. A number of surveys and opinion polls indicated that what mattered most to ordinary individuals were issues like internal security and the performance of the government in providing basic public goods and improving both the social infrastructure (healthcare and education) and the physical infrastructure (drinking water, roads and electricity) of the country. Most citizens were apparently not too concerned about the more emotive issues relating to caste, community or religious identities (including the issue of building a Ram temple in Ayodhya that was again raised by the BJP in the run-up to the 2009 election) or even national security (in the context of cross-border terrorism). However, for newspapers and television channels economic topics were obviously less sexy not just in comparison to the pronouncements of election candidates who were from the film world, had criminal antecedents or were the progeny of prominent politicians, but even in relation to their attire and demeanour. On the whole the media emphasised the trivial and the sensational over the more substantive but boring issues, such as the quality of governance, reduction of corruption, implementation of employment guarantee programmes in rural areas and waiver of loans to farmers. A number of civil society organisations, as well as many journalists, expressed concern about the misuse of print and electronic media by certain political parties and candidates contesting the 2009 elections and about media organisations allowing themselves to be thus abused. They pointed out that such practices would breach the trust of readers and viewers who are entitled to expect unbiased and fair news coverage, especially during elections. Traditional distinctions between news, views and political campaigning (read advertising) were often blurred. There were charges that some media organisations colluded with political parties and candidates in violating the model code of conduct formulated by the Election Commission of India, which includes a cap on campaign expenditure by individual candidates. Although important sections of the mass media in India covered the elections in a nonpartisan manner, there were sections that compromised their independence in favour of commercial interests. However, on the whole, a substantial section of the media in India was able to live up to the faith ordinary people have in democracy by

disseminating information and analyses of a wide variety of events and issues, and news and views of interest and concern to the electorate.

Election and Media


The strictures by the Election Commission of India, ECI, to the state media on how the latter should go about conducting their businesses of election coverage is welcome, although as pointed out by many media persons during a recent interaction, there are many grey areas to be clarified. While it is known that the media often gets carried along by those contesting the election from the ruling party in the presumption they were covering government news, the definition of fair election coverage would need more than a simple appeal for balanced election reporting. On the face of it, there can be no two ways whatsoever that once the election has been announced and the election code of conduct put in place, the media must be extra cautious to decide which news should be considered neutral government news and which election propaganda by the party in power. But to simply say no more news of the government in view of the forthcoming election would be wrong, for indeed, there can never be a situation where the government has ceased to exist, and covering government news is in the interest of the public. The danger also is, if the media is made to go silent for whatever the reason, a lot of official mischief can happen, considering one of the major roles of the media anywhere being as a watchdog to ensure public interest is not compromised by anybody, in particular by the government that be. If total neutrality of media coverage of government activities in election time were to be ensured, the electoral system ought to have made it mandatory for popular government to be dissolved a month ahead of elections and elections held under the caretaker charge of Presidents Rule. This would have not only ensure no undue advantage is taken by those in the ruling party in the use of official machineries or to elicit better media coverage of their election campaigns disguised as normal government activities. Since this is not the case, it would be not altogether correct to put the onus on the media to draw the dividing line. In the absence of very clear-cut guidelines on what can and what cannot be covered, verdicts on any section of the media having crossed the line will be arbitrary and therefore replete with dangers of draconian and big brotherly supervision. There is still time yet. The election office can still come out with a comprehensive list of election related events coverage which would be deemed as biased reporting instead of the vague instruction not to indulge in biased reporting. This would make things a lot easier for the section of the media which are truly independent and thus interested in fair and objective reporting only. Of those who are known to overtly incline towards one or the other contesting parties, there would be no ambiguity, for their taste and interest would be obvious to anybody. Similarly, there should

be little dispute about campaign advertisements, provided these advertisements are at a cost on public exchequer and in favour of the ruling party. However if it is a political party wishing to announce its candidates in poster formats with photographs of their candidates, or an individual candidate wishing to do the same, so that their prospective supporter would not mistake them while casting votes, there should not be any objection, for this is fair and legitimate concern. That is, if these bought spaces in the newspapers do not slander opponents or are disguised as news. This being the case, even if the election office decides any form of election related advertisements should be disallowed to be published in the media, it still needs to clarify on the matter of election related news. Take again another likely scenario in the days ahead of the election. The media would be expected by the reading public to give them news that gave the election atmosphere which invariably would include some sort of assessment of who are the prominent contenders. The media may even be expected to do interviews of prominent candidates, and the electronic media may even want to hold interactive debates with the candidates. What about these? What about speculations of the next government formation? It is understandable that the election office wants to ensure free and fair elections therefore its strictures on the media. But it must also be fair to the media in imposing these strictures therefore the need is for it to spell out in more details what constitutes unethical coverage of the elections.

Much has been written about US President Brack Obama's use of digital campaning and fund-raising that involved YouTube, blogs, social networking sites, online petitions, Google and Yahoo groups and more conventional email lists to build and sustain support. In India, in one sense, hi-tech election campaigns aren't necessarily new. Telugu Desam Party supremo and former Andhra Pradesh chief minister Chandrababy Naidu was known as India's most "tech-savy chief minister" and has used both text messaging (SMS) and the internet for campaning. Others who have extensively used technologies, especially cellphones, include Gujrat chief minister Narendra Modi, and former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the Bhartiya Janta Party during the 2004 Lok Sabha campaign. I still vividly recall his voice messages as well as the fact that all of that fancy campagning didn't stop the BJP from losing power as its "India Shining" campaign missed conneting with many voters.

Despite the surge in mobile phone usage, so-called hi-tech campaigns are now important but not sufficient in winning elections. This is primarily because the so-called information revolution in India has a small voter base. While India is estimated to have 12 million internet subscribers, I suspect that there are easily some 40 million people online of which 25 million are active on a weekly basis. And some 325 million mobile phone users. While only 20% of the internet user base in India is from non-urban areas, mobile phones are making fast inroads into rural India. However, access to the internet and its advantages are still largely restricted to the educated and elite in urban areas, a group that doesn't yet represent the majority of India's electorate. Looking back to the last Lok Sabha elections in 2004, one of the reasons that cost the BJP dearly was an urban-rural divide. A similar fate was in store for Naidu's technology led campaign in Andhra Pradesh that didn't go down well with the "real India" that was focused on realities such as rising farmer sucides. But the limited impact of the web in the campaining, notwithstanding BJP chief ministeral candidate V.K. Malhotra's much touted website in Delhi's elections, doesn't mean that the internet won't become a political tool for elections and help in raising political participation in the near future. While the technology is still new, especially to many of India's geriatiric politicians, as well as to most of the Indian voters, it is important to keep in mind that a very large percentage, nearly 70%, of the Indian population is under 35. It is this critical group of young voters, combined with sustained internet growth and increased connectivity in India, that points to the web, be it through computers or through mobile phones, comming to play a much greater role in future elections. Realizing this trend, some of these avenues are already being explored as political parties and the media prepare for the 2009 Lok Sabha elections. Significant campaign budgets are being allocated for internet and phone based promotions, including those that use cellphones to mobilize both voters and party faithfuls. What made Obama's campaign unique wasn't just the use of such technology, but how online tools were used to coordinate offline action and how precise and pesistant messages with clear calls for action, be it fund-rasing or mobilizing activities, got significant results. India's politicians are still about getting their arms and heads around using television effectively and, in recent weeks, radio where political ads have been approved.

Notions of interactivity through social networking and informal discussions using blogs could, over time, provide a compelling platform to involve voters, in the political discourse. There is already a nacent effort by non-partisan groups with initiatives such as Jaago re! One Billion Votes and India Banao! are visible. These initiatives are using the internet and mobile technologies for voter registeration, raising awarness about voting rules and procedures, providing periodic checks on electoral rolls, and acting as the source of election related news, providing both online and offline opportunities for young people to get involved. The vital role of the internet and mobile technologies in the 2008 US election has further endorsed the interest and relevance of these technologies in India's own election process and dialog. Hopefully, this e-democracy will emerge as a channel to enhance political accessibility, increase citizen dialog and build more expansive participation in our poliitcal processes.

MEDIA AND ELECTIONS


The mass media are essential to the conduct of democraticelections. A free and fair election is not only about casting a votein proper conditions, but also about having adequate information about parties, policies, candidates and the election process itself so that voters can make an informed choice. A democratic election with no media freedom would be a contradiction interms. But the paradox is that, in order to ensure that freedom, a degree of regulation is required. Government media, funded out of public money, should be required to give fair coverage and equitable access to opposition parties, for example. Media often may not be allowed to run reports for example on exit polls or early results - before every vote has been cast. The mass media often referred to as just the media are usually understood to refer to the printed press and to radio and television broadcasters. In recent years, the definition has perhaps become broader, encompassing the Internet in its various forms and other new forms of electronic distribution of news and entertainment, such as short message services to mobile telephones. The prime concern is the right of voters to full and accurate information. But this is not the only rightinvolved. Parties and candidates are entitled to use the media to get their messages across to the electorate. The media themselves have a right to report freely and to scrutinize the whole election process. This scrutiny is itself an important additional safeguard against interference or corruption in the management of the election. Finally, the electoral management body (EMB) has a crucial need to communicate information to the electorate and to a variety of other groups, including the political parties and the media themselves.

The relationship of the EMB to the media is hence a fairly complex one. Potentially, electoral managers may stand in three distinct relations to the media:

As regulator: the EMB may sometimes be responsible for developing or implementing regulations governing media behaviour during elections (especially relating to direct access to the media by parties and candidates). It may also be responsible for dealing with complaints against the media.

As communicator: the EMB will also, invariably, want to use the media as a vehicle for communicating its messages to the electorate.

As news story: the EMB will be a focus of media interest throughout the election process. Themedia will be interested in the information that the EMB can provide, as well as trying to scrutinize the EMBs performance and the efficiency and integrity of the elections.

Overview of Media and Elections


It is a truism that the media play an indispensable role in the proper functioning of a democracy. Discussion of the media's functions usually focuses on their "watchdog" role: by unfettered scrutiny and discussion of the successes and failures of governments, the media can inform the public of howeffectively its representatives have performed and help to hold them to account. Yet the media can also play a more specific part in enabling full public participation in elections, not only by reporting on the performance of government, but also in a number of other ways:

by educating the voters on how to exercise their democratic rights. by reporting on the development of the election campaign. by providing a platform for the political parties to communicate their message to the electorate.

by allowing the parties to debate with each other. by reporting results and monitoring vote counting. by scrutinizing the electoral process itself in order to evaluate its fairness, efficiency, and probity.

The media are not the sole source of information for voters, but in a world dominated by mass communications, it is increasingly the media that determine the political agenda, even in less technologically developed corners of the globe. Thus, election observation teams, for example, now routinely comment upon media access and coverage of elections as a criterion for judging

whetherelections are fair. In parallel, monitoring the media during election periods has become an increasingly common practice, using a combination of statistical analysis and the techniques of media studies and discourse analysis to measure whether coverage has been fair. There are, broadly speaking, three areas of media election coverage. Each operates according to different principles and requires a different role of the electoral supervisory body. Editorial Coverage This broadly refers to all aspects of news, features, current affairs, and opinion coverage that are under the editorial control of the media themselves. Aside from some limited areas - such as the reporting of results, or a restriction on reporting opinion polls shortly before voting - the role of the supervisory body is to do no more than facilitate the free operation of the media. Direct Access Coverage There is a bewildering variety of possible systems for regulating political advertising or free direct access coverage. This refers to that portion of election coverage that is under the editorial control of the parties or candidates themselves. There may be obligations on some sections of the media to carry such material, and there will almost certainly be conditions that they must abide by if they do. Candidate debates and panel interviews, which are increasingly common in election broadcast coverage, fall somewhere between these first two categories and may sometimes be subject to a degree of regulation that would not apply to ordinary editorial material. Voter Education This topic area does not deal in detail with voter education, which is covered in detail elsewhere.However, especially in a new democracy, the mass media may be a vital tool not only for keeping votersinformed about the issues and candidates, but also for imparting basic information about how to vote and what the vote is for. Voter education, like direct access, will be subject to strict standards that ensure its impartiality. This topic area is primarily concerned with the responsibility of election administrators and legislators to develop a regulatory framework for media activities during election periods and to facilitate mediafreedom. However, much of it may also be of value to others, such as media practitioners themselves and political parties. It begins by looking at overarching principles: the role of the media in a democracy and the development of international and comparative jurisprudence on media and elections. It also

discusses how the different levels of economic development and pluralism of the media and differing professional standards will affect the nature and quality of media coverage of elections. The central part of this topic area is a discussion of the different models for a regulatory framework for themedia in elections, ranging from an independent electoral commission to a specialized media regulator, such as a broadcasting commission or a voluntary media council or press complaints body. It looks at the different obligations of the print media and broadcasters, as well as those of media that are privately owned and those that are funded out of public money. The topic area goes on to look at the ways in which electoral management bodies can develop their own communications strategies to enable them to get their messages across, through the media among other channels. It looks at how to define messages and audiences and then to identify suitable mediatechniques to convey these messages. It examines the tasks of the EMB at different stages of the election process, from the pre-campaign period of voter education, through the campaign itself, to voting day, the count, and the announcement of results. The topic area explores the basic techniques and uses of media monitoring during an election campaign. It outlines quantitative and qualitative methodologies and looks at how media monitoring has been used by EMBs, non-governmental organizations, and international observer missions. The final section of the topic area looks at the issue of campaign reporting from the perspective of themedia themselves. It considers issues of planning and training for election coverage and then examines various ethical and practical questions arising in reporting the election process.

Guiding Principles of Media and Elections


The single guiding principle underlying the role of the media in elections is that without media freedom and pluralism, democracy is not possible. This has been underlined in the decisions of numerous international tribunals. It has also been stated very clearly in the recent past by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, who went on to elaborate a series of steps that governments should take to guarantee freedom of media during elections. There are a number of different dimensions to media freedom that are of relevance in elections:

Freedom from censorship. Freedom from arbitrary attack or interference. Free access to necessary information. A pluralism of voices in the media.

The last of these is especially important. It is often interpreted to mean that the media should be owned by a variety of different interests, resulting in a "market-place of ideas". This is important, but it is only one aspect. For countries emerging from authoritarian rule, usually characterized by tight state control over the media, ensuring pluralism within the publicly funded media may be equally important. This is because often it is only a government-controlled national broadcaster that has the capacity to reach all sections of the electorate. In order to ensure that the publicly funded media are not, in practice, government-controlled, a clear regulatory intervention may be required. This is the central paradox of the management of media inelections - the frequent need to establish a fairly complex regulatory system in order to enable the mediato operate freely and without interference. At stake are three interlocking sets of rights:

the right of the voters to make a fully informed choice. the right of the candidates to put their policies across. the right of the media to report and express their views on matters of public interest.

Of course, these rights, which are essentially all aspects of the right to freedom of expression guaranteedin Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, apply at all times, and not only when there is an election pending. But it is the very formality of the election process - the fact that it is conducted according to procedures that are clearly set out in law - that has stimulated the interest of those who are concerned with issues of media freedom. How far media freedom and pluralism are respected during an election period can be a fairly sensitive index of respect for freedom of expression in general - itself an essential precondition for a functioning democracy. Conversely, an election can be an ideal opportunity to educate both the authorities in their obligation to respect and nurture media freedom and the media in their responsibility to support the democratic process. Looking at relations with the media from the perspective of the electoral management body, two other important principles come into play: transparency and confidentiality.

Transparency means that the operations of the EMB are open to public scrutiny and hence accountability.

Confidentiality means that the security of the EMBs operations are safeguarded against those who have no right to unauthorized information and who may undermine the integrity of the election process.

Clearly these principles may come into conflict in practice. Complete transparency and confidentiality are clearly incompatible. However, establishing the precedence of these principles in any given case may be less difficult than it might at first appear.It will almost invariably be true that the plans and activities of the EMB should be open to public scrutiny. It will, without exception, be true that the vote itself should be secret. The borderline cases in between are likely to be few.

Right of Reply to Media Reports during Elections


The idea of creating a legally enforceable right of reply or correction has never found much favour with freedom of expression campaigners, who fear that it would stifle free and robust expression - clearly something that is particularly needed in the context of elections. However, both international advisory bodies and some national courts have favoured such a mechanism, especially when the matter being replied to is in the government-controlled media, to which the opposition may not have ready access.

imits to Liability of Media During Elections


Both journalists and politicians are concerned rightly with the issue of defamation. Specifically, how far are the media legally liable if they report statements by politicians that are subsequently found to be defamatory? In his 1999 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression came down firmly infavour of exempting the media from liability for publishing unlawful statements made by politicians in the context of an election. The type of statements envisaged might include those that were defamatory orincited to hatred. This does not mean that there would be no liability for such statements - the person who made them would still be liable - but that the media would be free to reproduce them without, for example, having to review every party election broadcast or advertisement before transmission. "The Special Rapporteur was offering a clear guideline on a matter that has been hitherto unclear and controversial. Thus, for example, the United Nations Transitional Authorities in Cambodia in its guidelines took precisely the opposite view, assuming that media would be legally responsible for statements that "incite discrimination, hostility or violence by means of national, religious, racial or ethnic hatred" The Special Rapporteur was reflecting a growing trend in national courts and legislatures. The Danish Parliament passed a law exempting the media from liability for publishing statements inciting racial or national hatred, providing that they themselves did not intend to promote hatred. This followed the conviction of a journalist who had been convicted and fined for broadcasting a television interview with

members of a racist gang. He applied to the European Commission of Human Rights, which ruled his application admissible

Anda mungkin juga menyukai