A question of access

The media has long been held to play a key role in the fostering of democracy, forming a bridge between the governed and governing. So it goes without saying that during elections the role of the news media becomes especially important.
Elections are considered the expression of the will of the people in a democracy and in the run-up to elections it is the media's role to give accurate and balanced coverage and analysis of issues and political parties. This coverage allows the electorate to reach an informed decision on the stances of political parties and individual politicians before marking their ballot paper on election day.
The watchdog role of the media then is seen as important in ensuring free and fair elections.
However, with the National Assembly and Presidential elections looming in November this year, the question has to be asked whether the media is accessible to all political parties, as well as citizens and civil society organisations?
The issue of fair media coverage has already hit the headlines with DTA Secretary General McHenry Venaani accusing the national broadcaster, the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC), of favouring the ruling Swapo Party in its coverage, while ignoring the campaign activities of opposition parties.
In a letter written to acting NBC Director General, Matthew Gowaseb, Venaani stated: “To our dismal disappointment, your institution is busy with a clear political perpetuation of one-party dominance through everyday covering rallies of the ruling party ....
Venaani's sentiments echo an often heard complaint, from amongst opposition and alternative political organisations, against the media in general – that the ruling party unfairly receives the bulk of media coverage, not only shortly before elections but in intervening years as well.
A Media Tenor survey of election coverage, from September 1 to November 9 2004, found that the “Swapo Party has the highest volume of coverage”, receiving almost 44 per cent of coverage across all major media.

More resources means greater access

Countering this claim, media organisations and journalists in general point to the fact that in the run-up to elections, as well as the years leading up to elections, the ruling party is much more active than opposition parties and that the ruling party, having more resources at its disposal, does more campaigning.
Also, they say, coverage is determined by the proportion of support for and representation of political parties, with lesser parties necessarily receiving less coverage.
Another reason mentioned by media organisations, for directing the bulk of coverage to the more prominent political organisations, is that not many media, and not even state- funded media, have the resources and staff for more extensive coverage across the political spectrum.
But while these factors might suggest or contribute to the suspicion of coverage in favour of the ruling party, the 2004 Media Tenor survey found that coverage of political party platforms in that election year was generally “neutral”.

An international dilemma

The question of access to the media before and during elections is not limited to Namibia, though.
In a similar vein as McHenry Venaani's lambasting of the NBC, in the run-up to the South African presidential and parliamentary elections earlier this year, opposition parties accused the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) of extensively and uncritically covering the ruling African National Congress (ANC) agenda, while largely ignoring opposition parties.
For its part, the ANC loudly and continuously accused independent media of trying to publicly embarrass the party and its leader, Jacob Zuma.
And during the lengthy campaigning for the US presidency last year, the major and influential US media organisations were consistently accused of bias towards either the Democratic or Republican agenda and candidates.
Public opinion polls conducted during the US campaigning found that a majority of the electorate considered media coverage of the election processes and candidates as not credible.