One prediction for the election can be made with confidence: as the political temperature rises, politicians from various sides will complain with increasing bitterness that the media are biased.
In some cases the complaint may be justified. Very often, though, the complaints will be a tactic to push journalists into the complainants’ own corner.
Modern elections are fought mainly through the media. Parties spend huge amounts of money on buying advertising space and on developing strategies to attract the attention of journalists.
Whether a politician goes door to door, or meets kids at a school, or spends the night with a community safety patrol, the real benefit is in the resulting media coverage. As with the old saying about a tree falling in a forest, there’s only a sound if the media are there to listen.
Even though the date for the poll has not yet been announced, the country’s media are already in election mode. Some have introduced the teams charged with covering the story, special ”election 2009” logos have begun making an appearance and we are seeing the first party debates on television.
Unusually, some media groups have announced that they are appointing an external monitor to ensure their coverage is fair — an indication that they expect parties to complain. One of these is the SABC, already under fire from across the political spectrum for political bias. Some missteps of its own have made it vulnerable to criticism.
It is not clear how these unidentified monitors will do their work. One hopes they won’t take a quantitative approach, counting seconds of airtime and column centimetres.
The ANC has sometimes intimated that it should get space in the media that is in proportion to its electoral support. But it would be disastrous for any media group — not just the SABC — to entertain that kind of argument. It would lead to coverage by roster: if it’s Tuesday, the DA has to lead the paper, whether it’s done anything interesting or not.
How would you decide the ”right” proportions, anyway? Following the patterns of electoral support would disadvantage new players such as the Congress of the People. Giving everyone equal attention would lead to the absurdity of treating fringe groups such as the Soccer Party in the same way as the ruling party.
In the first democratic election, SABC television tried to be evenhanded by organising panel discussions that included every party. They were vast panels that made for unwatchable television. In the time available every party — small or large — was able to get in about half a sentence.
There’s no getting away from it: editors can’t rely on a formula; they have to exercise judgement in deciding on coverage. The test has to be newsworthiness, as imperfect a tool as that is.
The size and weight of parties will surely be a factor, but not the only one. Small parties deserve some attention too because sometimes they have interesting leaders or good ideas.
Decisions on coverage should be made with a clear focus on the readers. As voters, they need clear information on the policy differences between the various parties, and the people running for office. Ideally, that’s what elections are supposed to be about: voters being wooed with good ideas and good people to put them into practice.
That kind of information should be presented without too much embellishment.
In the Mail & Guardian you can expect several special supplements, with the comment and analysis sections and other areas providing straightforward information on what the parties say. You may have noticed a few weeks ago that an edition included a guide to the manifestos of the different political parties.
In that context the media provide an arena for the parties, which all get to have their say.
At the same time, journalists need to bring their political insight and reporting skill to bear on the campaign. There are interesting stories to tell about the tactics the parties use, how they do among different groups of voters, campaign finance, how the race develops, the texture of the various campaigns and many others. This kind of writing will range from straightforward reporting of events to analytical articles, seeking to explain developments, and commentary, in which journalists set out their views.
And let’s not lose sight of the need to give voice to the voters themselves. The M&G has regularly recorded the views of supporters of various groups — I’m sure this will continue.
Parties have a justified expectation of fair treatment. But it’s far more important for readers to be treated fairly — and that simply means giving them the best journalism possible.
The Mail & Guardian‘s ombud provides an independent view of the paper’s journalism. If you have any complaints you would like addressed, you can contact me at [email protected]. You can also call the paper on 011 250 7300 and leave a message One prediction for the election can be made with confidence: as the political temperature rises, politicians from various sides will complain with increasing bitterness that the media are biased.
In some cases the complaint may be justified. Very often, though, the complaints will be a tactic to push journalists into the complainants’ own corner.
Modern elections are fought mainly through the media. Parties spend huge amounts of money on buying advertising space and on developing strategies to attract the attention of journalists.
Whether a politician goes door to door, or meets kids at a school, or spends the night with a community safety patrol, the real benefit is in the resulting media coverage. As with the old saying about a tree falling in a forest, there’s only a sound if the media are there to listen.
Even though the date for the poll has not yet been announced, the country’s media are already in election mode. Some have introduced the teams charged with covering the story, special ”election 2009” logos have begun making an appearance and we are seeing the first party debates on television.
Unusually, some media groups have announced that they are appointing an external monitor to ensure their coverage is fair — an indication that they expect parties to complain. One of these is the SABC, already under fire from across the political spectrum for political bias. Some missteps of its own have made it vulnerable to criticism.
It is not clear how these unidentified monitors will do their work. One hopes they won’t take a quantitative approach, counting seconds of airtime and column centimetres.
The ANC has sometimes intimated that it should get space in the media that is in proportion to its electoral support. But it would be disastrous for any media group — not just the SABC — to entertain that kind of argument. It would lead to coverage by roster: if it’s Tuesday, the DA has to lead the paper, whether it’s done anything interesting or not.
How would you decide the ”right” proportions, anyway? Following the patterns of electoral support would disadvantage new players such as the Congress of the People. Giving everyone equal attention would lead to the absurdity of treating fringe groups such as the Soccer Party in the same way as the ruling party.
In the first democratic election, SABC television tried to be evenhanded by organising panel discussions that included every party. They were vast panels that made for unwatchable television. In the time available every party — small or large — was able to get in about half a sentence.
There’s no getting away from it: editors can’t rely on a formula; they have to exercise judgement in deciding on coverage. The test has to be newsworthiness, as imperfect a tool as that is.
The size and weight of parties will surely be a factor, but not the only one. Small parties deserve some attention too because sometimes they have interesting leaders or good ideas.
Decisions on coverage should be made with a clear focus on the readers. As voters, they need clear information on the policy differences between the various parties, and the people running for office. Ideally, that’s what elections are supposed to be about: voters being wooed with good ideas and good people to put them into practice.
That kind of information should be presented without too much embellishment.
In the Mail & Guardian you can expect several special supplements, with the comment and analysis sections and other areas providing straightforward information on what the parties say. You may have noticed a few weeks ago that an edition included a guide to the manifestos of the different political parties.
In that context the media provide an arena for the parties, which all get to have their say.
At the same time, journalists need to bring their political insight and reporting skill to bear on the campaign. There are interesting stories to tell about the tactics the parties use, how they do among different groups of voters, campaign finance, how the race develops, the texture of the various campaigns and many others. This kind of writing will range from straightforward reporting of events to analytical articles, seeking to explain developments, and commentary, in which journalists set out their views.
And let’s not lose sight of the need to give voice to the voters themselves. The M&G has regularly recorded the views of supporters of various groups — I’m sure this will continue.
Parties have a justified expectation of fair treatment. But it’s far more important for readers to be treated fairly — and that simply means giving them the best journalism possible.
The Mail & Guardian’s ombud provides an independent view of the paper’s journalism. If you have any complaints you would like addressed, you can contact me at [email protected]. You can also call the paper on 011 250 7300 and leave a message