Back to Index

Direct access to the media in election campaign
A review & recommendations for Zimbabwe
Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe
November 30, 2001

Contents   « Prev Page

At what time should direct access programmes be broadcast?
It should go without saying that fair access to the airwaves by politicians will also include access to prime time broadcasting. This issue does not arise in relation to the print media – parties will generally place their advertisements in the publications that have the readership that they want to reach. But the tendency with broadcasting will be to allocate the best slots to the ruling party – this was happened in Chile, for example, in the plebiscite on the return to democracy. Pro-democracy broadcasts were only aired in the early hours of the morning – not that it seemed to affect the result. Most democracies divide up the prime slots among the parties. Sometimes, when there are too many parties to make this easy, allocation is done by drawing lots although this is unlikely to be necessary in Zimbabwe. However, the question of who broadcasts first and last may be of significance. It may be better if this is decided by a chance method.

MMPC Recommends

• The electoral authorities should ensure an equal division of prime broadcasting slots between parties with equal broadcasting time, and fair access to prime slots by parties with smaller allocations.
• The order of direct access broadcasts should be decided by drawing lots

How long should direct access broadcasts be?
This issue has become a matter of great controversy in some countries. In the past parties always vied to get the longest possible time. In countries such as the US, where television dominates campaigning, the aim now is to get many very short advertising slots. Some electoral authorities resist this desire to go for shorter slots on the grounds that it curtails serious political debate.

A solution adopted in some countries is to give each party a certain overall time allocation and allow them to divide it up as they choose. This is an attractive option in principle, but it would prove unwieldy in practice because of the problems that it would pose for broadcasting schedules.

MMPC Recommends

• The allocation of time for broadcasting should be divided into slots of a standard length – say five or 10 minutes, which would allow sufficient time for parties to explain their policy on a particular issue.

Should there be any restrictions on the content of direct access broadcasting?

This is one of the most difficult questions of all to answer, for obvious reasons:

• Election periods are one of the times when freedom of political speech is most important if there is to be a full exchange of ideas and options.
• Election periods are one of the times when violence is most likely to be inflamed by provocative or inflammatory language.

Different countries have a variety of different rules that regulate either the form or content of direct access material. For example, France has regulations that prohibit a presidential candidate from being portrayed in his or her place of work. This slightly strange restriction is intended to remove the advantage from the incumbent, who might otherwise be shown in the presidential palace. Other countries have restrictions on commercial product placement. Such issues are not our primary concern.

Some countries even prohibit personal criticism altogether – a provision that would seem unduly restrictive, especially in a presidential election where a central issue is the candidates’ personal fitness for office.

In practice the main issue is how to deal with material (particularly broadcasts) that contain either material that is deliberately inaccurate or material that may incite people to commit violence.

There is a delicate balancing act between the right of free speech on the one hand, and the right not be a victim of either defamation or violence on the other.

The general move in many countries is to stick with various principles:

• Politicians – and especially government ones – should be prepared to put up with greater criticism, including very strongly worded criticism, not less than ordinary citizens.
• The threat of inciting violence should be dealt with by encouraging a variety of different voices, rather than limiting violent voices.
• Any restrictions prior to publication or broadcast should be kept to a minimum.
• The media should not be held legally liable for reporting illegal statements by others in the course of an elections campaign (such as defamation or incitement to violence). But they remain liable for their own illegal statements.

MMPC Recommends

• The media should not be held legally liable for the content of direct access material.
• Members of the public or those who have been criticized should have the right to make a complaint to the electoral authority – this hinges on the existence of an independent and impartial electoral commission.
• The electoral commission is empowered to give the complainant a right of reply in the same media and of similar prominence, if it finds that the original material was seriously inaccurate or malicious.
• A right of reply would not apply in relation to statements of opinion, however strongly worded, unless they contained an explicit incitement to commit violence.

Should free time given to a candidate be counted as a campaign donation?
A final issue to consider is what happens if a party or candidate exceeds their allocation of direct access time or space. This might happen because a newspaper or broadcasting station gives a candidate free advertising. There is currently no legislation in place on campaign spending limits that would apply to this, although a donation of time or space from a publicly funded media organ could clearly breach the law on funding of political parties. It would be the responsibility of the electoral authorities to pursue this vigorously.

Another situation that may arise is that what is ostensibly editorial coverage, for example at the public broadcaster, is in practice used as uncritical material urging a vote for one particular candidate. There are two possible remedies for this. One would be to deduct such time from the allocation available to the party benefiting. The other would be to grant a right of reply to other candidates. Neither is particularly desirable since they are an interference with the independent operations of a media organ. But the problem will only arise, of course, if that organ fails to exercise independent judgement. The second option – a right of reply – is probably preferable to the first since it does not require such precise calculation of the free time given to the candidate.

MMPC Recommends

• The legal provisions regarding public funding of political parties should be vigorously applied. Any time given to a party by a public media organization should be deducted from that party’s statutory allocation of funds

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP