1. The OSCE/ODIHR, the European Commission and the Council of Europe are drawing upGuidelines on media analysis during election observation missions. The OSCE/ODIHR prepared the first versions of the draft Guidelines. The VeniceCommission has been involved in this work since January 2004. A member of the Council for Democratic Elections, Mr Owen Masters (United Kingdom), prepared comments on the first draft, which were discussed at the 7^th meeting of the Council for Democratic Elections (Venice,11 March 2004) and transmitted to OSCE/ODIHR (CDL-EL(2004)005rev). A revised version of the draft Guidelines was prepared later by OSCE/ODIHR.

2. The new comments by Mr Owen Masters (United Kingdom) and Ms Herdis Thorgeirsdottir (Iceland)were adopted by the Council for Democratic Elections at its 10^th meeting (Venice,10 October 2004) and by the VeniceCommission at its 61^st plenary session (Venice, 3-4 December 2004). They are enclosed.

3. The Guidelines on Media Monitoring during Election Observation Missions are meant to be tools for media analysts in producing an assessment based not only on media monitoring but on the overall background that the media operate in. The evaluation of media performances during election campaigns is based on compliance with international standards and the fundamental question whether the rights of voters, candidates and the media are respected during the electoral process.

4. This report has been compiled after taking into account much of the content of ODIHR document “Guidelines on Media Analysis During Election Observation Missions”, andCDL-EL(2004)005rev “Media Monitoring During Election Observation Missions” of 20 April 2004. The report has also recognised recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (Recommendation No. R(99)15 to member states, on measures concerning media coverage of election campaigns).

Comments by Mr Owen Masters (expert, United Kingdom)

I. General

5. The ODIHR document “Guidelines on Media Analysis During Election Observation Missions” is very comprehensive, and includes most of the issues contained inCDL-EL(2004)005rev “Media Monitoring During Election Observation Missions” of 20 April 2004.

6. However, this revised report also contains proposed amendments to the ODIHR document as follows:

- Page 2 - References to ODIHR EOMs should also include CoE EOMs.

- Page 5 - Bullet Point 3 to be amended to read:

Respect for the fundamental principle of editorial independence of the media, in particular printed and private media, and in their right to express a preference. This assumes a special importance during election periods.

- Page 8 - 5th Bullet Point to be amended to read:

Access of candidates and political parties particularly in respect of public Media, should follow the principle of equality of opportunity.

- Page 9 - 1st Bullet Point to be amended to read:

The media have a duty to offer a right of reply to statements that are inaccurate or offensive, and they must be able to exercise this right of reply during the campaign period.

- Page 29 - Guidelines –Autonomy – Amend to read…newspapers and broadcasters.

This is a fundamental principle that should be respected, particularly in respect of printed and private media and their right to express a preference.

Page 29 - Guidelines – Journalists rights – 5^th Line …cases of repression. Suggest adding:

…… repression, and those responsible should be held accountable …..

- Page 30 - Final Paragraph Line 3 amend to read:

..… equal time to all of them, but ensuring that they have equal access and …..

- Page 34 - Box – Private Electronic Media – Amend by adding:

Where equal access is provided for one or more parties and candidates, then equal access and treatment should be available to all parties and candidates. Coverage must follow the criteria of balanced and impartial reporting.

- Page 34 - Box- Private Print Media – Add any regulations on media coverage of elections should not interfere with the editorial independence of newspapers and magazines, or their right to express a political preference

- Page 48 - Box – Final Paragraph – Amend by adding:

Any restriction should comply with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

- Page 51 - 3.4.14 – Right of Reply – Amend by adding:

… in the following days during the election campaign period …

- Page 52 - 3.4.16 – Minorities – Amend by adding:

... of concern. Broadcasts should not take place during unsocial hours …..

- Page 56 - 4.3 – Reference to OSCE commitments should be amended to read OSCE/CoE commitments.

II. Role of Media

7. There is increasing recognition of the important role of the media in modern society, especially at elections. The influence of the media is particularly noticeable on the conduct of elections, in communications with the public, and the outcome of an election.

8. This report will contain information on the problems and choices of media monitoring, including the quality of the coverage, information gathering, and analysis on the interpretation of data. In addition reference will be made to specific features of the coverage of elections, which may include the granting of free airtime to political parties and candidates, dissemination of opinion polls, paid political advertising, days of reflection, and the right of reply.

9. During elections the media can assist voters in making informed choices of the parties and candidates they wish to support. The media is also a means to provide access for political contestants to communicate with voters. However, there must be equality of opportunity for all parties and contestants. It is generally accepted that journalism must be of a standard, which will ensure the provision of accurate and objective journalism.

10. Media Monitoring is an effective tool to measure how the political parties are treated by the media, and how the media are treated by the politicians. Credible media monitoring projects provide citizens with information on the reporting of the whole election process.

11. Election observation missions now include media monitoring/analysis as an accepted tool to observe elections. Furthermore, in newly emerging democracies, or in post-conflict countries, media monitoring projects are undertaken to establish the conduct of media in election and non-election periods.

12. The report is also an overview of the main issues in media observation and analysis, as experienced by ODIHR and Council of Europe Election Observation Missions.

III. Protection of Freedom of Expression

13. Over the years both the Council of Europe and OSCE have developed a number of commitments.

14. These commitments are many, and examples include:

1. Freedom of expression, including the right to communication and the right of the media to collect, report and disseminate information, news and opinions, is a fundamental right.

2. Individuals and groups should have the right of participatory access to the media.

3. Respect for the fundamental principle of editorial independence of the media, in particular printed and private media, and in their right to express a preference. This assumes a special importance during election periods, and applies in particular to regulations on media coverage of elections.

4. There should be no legal or administrative obstacle to obstruct access to the media within the electoral process.

5. The promotion of diversity as a primary goal of broadcast regulation, including gender equality, equal opportunity for all sections of society, and equal access to the airwaves.

6. The public shall enjoy freedom to receive and impart information and ideas, without interference by public authorities, regardless of frontiers, including through foreign publications and foreign broadcasts.

7. Media should enjoy unrestricted access to foreign news and information services.

8. Attacks on, and harassment of journalists must be condemned and those responsible should be held accountable.

9. Access of candidates and political parties to public and private media should follow the principle of equality of opportunity.

10. Regulatory frameworks should be established where political parties and candidates are permitted to buy advertising space from the media.

11. The media has a duty to offer a right of reply to statements that are inaccurate or offensive, and the exercise of this right must take place during the campaign period.

15. The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in a number of declarations, treaties and conventions. States that are signatories to these documents, or members of organisations which produced such declarations, have the moral duty, and sometimes legal obligation to comply with such provisions.

IV. International Standards of Media during Elections

16. Freedom of the media constitutes a fundamental principle of freedom of expression, which is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights In addition it is one of the conditions for all pluralistic and democratic societies. The press and the electronic media are required to impart information, and ideas on matters of public interest. The media must also ensure that such information and ideas can be accessed by the public. Media commissions or any other form of regulatory mechanism, both for print and electronic media, should be independent from political parties, and have an arms length relationship with the government.

17. The media are indeed a fundamental element in a democratic society, in that they disseminate a variety of information and opinions. It has long been recognised that the media are tools of power and influence. In daily life the media undertake social, economic, cultural and political functions. It has been suggested that the media is a “market place of ideas” where a variety of media can provide citizens with a diversity of information.

18. During election periods the media is an essential element of the democratic system, and has many responsibilities including the covering of political facts and events in the most objective, impartial and open way. There is also a responsibility for promoting a variety of views, opinions, in addition to reporting the news.

19. Voters have the right to be informed on political alternatives in order to make an informed choice. Responsible media should provide politicians and parties not only with coverage, but a forum for debate. Freedom of communication in respect of political discussion and public affairs, are indispensable to the accountability of political representatives and officials.

20. In democracies the media should be socially responsible in order to serve the interests of society. The media should adopt guidelines of good practice; develop codes of conduct and other self regulatory measures to ensure responsible, accurate, and fair coverage of electoral campaigning.

21. States and governments in order to guarantee freedom of expression in the media, must refrain from interfering in media functions, and when necessary impose positive measures to protect the media from undue pressures.

22. In ensuring fair treatment for all political contestants, the following guidelines should be taken into account:

1. The public media must provide all parties and candidates in elections equal access, and they should comply with the provisions for electoral coverage as set by national legislation. Furthermore the public media should adhere to journalistic ethics and professional standards,

2. Private electronic media should comply with the provision of election coverage as set by national legislation,

3. Where access by the private media is granted to one or more parties and candidates, then equal access and treatment should be available to all parties and candidates. Coverage must follow the criteria of balanced and impartial reporting,

4. Private broadcasters should adhere to journalistic ethics and professional standards,

5. The private print media should be allowed a wider degree of partisanship and opinion than the electronic media. However, the press should comply with the provisions for election coverage as set by national legislation, and to journalistic ethics and professional standards.

23. Fairness and impartiality is of particular importance in news, current affairs or discussion programmes given that some people form their voting intentions on the basis of such programmes. The media should not manipulate the picture or sound, so that the choice of words or other means of expression, such as a change in tone, a change in stress or editing distorts the meaning or the values of the report. Furthermore, the media should not broadcast a report based on unverified information, rumours, or with the intention to create a scandal. If such a story is felt important enough to publish, despite the fact that it is not verified, it should do so with a warning saying the facts could not be verified.

24. All media should permit replies and corrections within their programmes or publications. If a political subject is attacked by another politician (or anybody else) in a programme where he/she is not present, it is reasonable to offer the person attacked an opportunity to reply in the following days, but this should be during the election campaign.

25. National minorities must be given reasonable access to state-owned public media to express their views. Broadcasts should not take place during unsocial hours, but at reasonable times of the day. It is also a matter of serious concern, when there are restrictions affecting the ability of national minorities to access the media, lack of coverage in areas populated by national minorities, lack of candidates from national minorities, or no broadcasting in the language of national minorities. Private media should not discriminate against any candidate or party on the basis they represent national minorities.

26. Discussion programmes, such as interviews or debates, supplement the normal news coverage of elections and are important for voters to make direct comparison between candidates. These programmes should be organised in a fair manner, but at the same time permit editorial freedom on the format, number of participants and length of programme. However, the distribution of time should be under editorial control, but guarantee equality of opportunity to all contestants, as well as the coverage of a plurality of views.

27. While the journalists hosting the programme have the duty to be impartial, non-political guests, such as other journalists, political analysts, experts, ordinary people, can express their own personal opinions. What is required is that represented opinions on controversial matters are many, and differentiated. The participation of contestants in these programmes should not be conditional upon payment of any fees.

28. Voter education programmes are vital in providing information to citizens. Programmes containing voter information should always be separate from political messages. Public broadcasters should carry voter information under different formats, and at times when they can reach the widest audience. These programmes should provide voters with clear understandable and unbiased information on:

1. Voters lists: how and where to register, how to check the list, how to file a complaint,

2. Nature of election – local, presidential, parliamentary, referenda,

3. The type of election system,

4. Voting procedures, and where to vote,

5. Basic rights and duties: secrecy of the vote, provisions related to proxy or family voting.

29. Private broadcasters may be required to transmit voter education programmes under the terms of their broadcasting licence or according to electoral legislation. Private broadcasters should follow the same principles ensuring unbiased, clear, and understandable information.

30. The private print media although not obliged by law, should provide voters with accurate information in respect of voting procedures.

V. Types of Media and Election Coverage

31. In politics the media are a fundamental element in the democratic system, providing parties and candidates with coverage, and at the same time providing an arena for dissemination of information, and public debate. However, the media has many responsibilities including the covering of political facts and events in the most impartial and open way. There is also the responsibility of promoting a variety of views, opinions in addition to interpreting news. This will enable the public to better understand the information they are receiving.

32. Voters have the right to be informed on political alternatives in order to make an informed choice. The impact of media coverage on the electorate is a controversial issue. There are many opinions, but there is no definite answer to the question related to the power of the media, to influence voters on their choice. The right of voters to make an informed choice in an election implies that the media should inform them in a professional and correct manner. Information should be provided, on the platforms, views of the different candidates, the events of the political campaign, the counting of votes, and election results.

33. Which media is the most important, will vary from country to country, and although in poor countries radio will reach more people than any other media, television is of growing importance. However the role of the print media should not be underestimated. The print media play an important role in interpreting events, and presenting comments which may influence the electorate.

34. The main difference in the electronic media is between those that are publicly and privately owned. The distinction has consequences for the degree of control, and also regulations imposed on them by public institutions.

35. While all media are expected to offer responsible and fair coverage, it is the state/publicly owned media that appears to observe more rigorous standards, as they belong to the citizens. The citizens pay fees, and therefore the public media has the legal and moral obligation to serve the interest of the general public. Using state/publicly owned media to promote a certain political party or candidate, is therefore an illegitimate manipulation of the public, using the public’s own resources. The state media can be more vulnerable to pressure from authorities, especially in those countries where they have not been transferred into a truly independent service broadcaster.

36. Candidates should have the right of access to the media, to communicate their platforms and views, and inform voters of their proposals and matters of interest. Alongside such rights of access to the media, and benefits from the coverage of the media, come responsibilities, not to abuse such rights.

VI. Media Ownership Politics and Elections

37. There are two central elements which determine the quality of media during elections:

1. Media independence – in particular their freedom from political or corporate interference,

2. Internal media diversity in content, views and formats.

38. The strength of the right to freedom of expression can be affected by problems experienced by the media. These can be attacks or pressures against independent media, the use of courts and lawsuits with which to impede journalists in their activities, government control over essential resources such as printing houses, the supply of paper, and distribution systems. The repression of journalists, harassment, and intimidation, is likely to encourage self-censorship by journalists. Furthermore in newly emerging democracies, or in post-conflict countries, it is often poor professional standards among journalists, which can affect media coverage during elections.

39. Where there are connections between media and politics, it can be an element affecting the freedom of the mass media. An example can be the extent in which political authorities try to control the state/public media. The misuse of instruments in the renewal of licences, financing, or registration, can be used to influence media activity.

40. Democratic society faces a number of challenges in the coming years in respect of a free and independent media. Among these are:

1. The main source of income for private, and in some cases state media is advertising. This creates pressure for editorial policies to correspond to the views and interests of corporate advertisers.

2. The media are becoming increasingly concentrated in their ownership, with a smaller number of corporations owning a variety of different media outlets not only in one country, but throughout the world.

41. Although broadcasters owned by private interests are commercial enterprises, they should also comply with certain obligations (particularly during an election campaign). The public authority providing the licence should ensure that certain requirements are complied with, in relation to news information, current affairs programmes, and voter information. Often a private broadcaster may not cover the entire national territory, and then the importance of private broadcasters can be limited. However in many countries the private broadcaster has equal coverage to the public media, and should also comply with impartiality.

42. Private owners sometimes have strategic and political interests, often expressed openly and publicly, and in some cases politicians and members of the government own television and /or radio companies. Such ownership could affect the perceived fairness of the electoral coverage. Private broadcasters should comply with standards of impartiality in their news and current affairs programmes. Private broadcasters, irrespective of their audience share, coverage area, should offer fair and accurate coverage of the elections. Should private broadcasters decide not to provide election or political coverage, then this would be reflected in the conditions of a broadcasting licence.

VII. Media Context

43. Within the electoral process, the state, and particularly the government have a dual responsibility:

1. Refrain from interfering in the activities of the media, and not to impede journalists, and other media personnel in their functions, with a view to influencing the elections.

2. To promote pluralism and freedom of the media.

44. Parties and candidates also have responsibilities and should comply with certain fundamental duties in order to respect the freedom of expression of the media. They should not interfere in the editorial policy of independent and public media, by any direct or indirect pressure. They should also respect the laws regulating the campaign, and electoral blackout.

45. Guiding principles in order to ensure and promote a mature media system include:

1. Governments should promote and facilitate diversity in the ownership of media outlets, particularly broadcasting media. It should avoid restrictive licensing or registration requirements, limit media monopolies through curbs on cross-media ownership, and facilitate finance for smaller initiatives such as community media

2. Political and corporate powers should not interfere – directly or indirectly – with the editorial independence of newspapers and broadcasters

3. States should guarantee the rights of journalists to carry out their functions. Any kind of repression against journalists and their employers (attacks, harassment, intimidation) constitutes a clear violation of their human rights, not only as individuals, but as representatives of a fundamental social institution.

4. Journalists should adhere to standards of professionalism and ethic when carrying out their activities

5. No censorship is acceptable

6. Any measures or actions promoting or causing self-censorship among journalists, should be considered as an attack on their editorial freedoms

46. Political impartiality in broadcasting is essential to provide a true and accurate picture of the progress and conduct of the elections. Giving equitable treatment to all parties involved in the elections may not mean devoting equal time to all of them, but rather making sure access is provided, ensuring that all significant viewpoints are heard. This will provide democratic debate in the broadcast media.

47. The current government has a larger degree of attention from the media because of their need to cover activities of the government, which may include official events, meetings, and inauguration of project implemented. Events can be genuine and relevant (such as national celebrations or anniversaries); others can be marginal; such as the opening of public buildings, and events managed by the government with the aim of getting a wider media coverage. However, as the government is the main policy maker, coverage is necessary to keep the public informed.

48. The media have a responsibility to be consistent in separating the activities of the incumbent powers, from the activities they pursue as representatives of political parties contesting the election. No privileged treatment should be given to public authorities by the media during election campaigns.

VIII. Regulation of Media Coverage during an Election

49. Obligations and regulations for the public media are necessary, as the public media is financed with taxpayer’s money, and should be considered a public resource. Obligations and consequent regulation to which the private broadcasting media are subjected are more variable, and problematic to define. During an electoral campaign, the degree of editorial freedom that should be accorded to private broadcasters is related to the degree of diversity in the media landscape. All this can best be summarised by:

1. The public and private media shall provide equal access, with fair, balanced, and impartial coverage for all parties and candidates running for election,

2. The private media must comply with the provisions for electronic coverage as set by national legislation, and they must adhere to journalistic ethics, and professional standards,

3. Private print media should be permitted a wider degree of opinion than the public electronic media. Any regulations on media coverage of elections should not interfere with the editorial independence of newspapers and magazines, or their right to express a political preference.

50. The media have a duty to inform the public in an accurate, fair and professional manner. Journalists accustomed to working in repressive political systems, or in post-conflict countries, have less experience with professional standards than those working in an open and democratic environment.

51. If the media are to be socially responsible, this will require that media professionals develop codes of conduct and other self-regulatory measures, which will set out guidelines. The media should adhere to the codes of conduct and professional standards. Professional standards are reflected in a number of self regulatory methods chosen by journalists to:

1. Make their activities more professional by establishing a set of criteria, and responsibilities that should guide their activities,

2. Protect themselves from interference by political authorities,

3. Protect themselves from critics and external interventions that may threaten their autonomy.

52. A summary of codes of conduct which are different depending on the time and the place, but could be illustrative of the values common in journalism are:

1. Information produced should be true, clear, timely, verifiable, substantiated and accurate,

2. Refuse to receive or be influenced by bribes or inducements,

3. Defend their independence from pressures of owners and advertisers,

4. Protect confidential sources of information,

5. Be aware of their responsibilities towards the public, sources of information, the state, the advertisers, and protect their professional integrity,

6. Defend the rights of the public.

53. Voters have the right to be informed on political alternatives in order to make an informed choice. The right of voters to make an informed choice in an election implies that the media should inform them in a professional and correct manner. Information should be provided on the platforms, views of the different candidates, the events of the political campaign, the electoral process including the counting of votes, and election results. Candidates should have the right of access to the media, and inform the voters of their proposals and matters of public interest. These rights should be recognised in a non-discriminatory way.

54. Media performance during elections depends primarily on the context in which the media operates, and on the level of media autonomy. Therefore, no code of conduct will guarantee professional and fair coverage of elections unless the political, social and economic system permits journalists to undertake their duties freely.

55. The print media is seen as an independent source of information, and appears in varying formats including daily/weekly newspapers, and magazines. The print media is usually privately owned, and although state print media is still present in some countries, their market share together with their readership has reduced. Private print media are generally entitled to a larger degree of partisanship than the publicly financed press and broadcasting media. The private print media often plays a more important role than the electronic media, in acting in the public interest as watchdogs and opinion makers. As a result they have the right to their own political agenda, as well as the right to be critical towards politicians. In addition, the general practice of self-regulation adopted by the print media (through press councils and codes of conduct), can be interpreted as the need for the press not to be bound by rules set by external bodies, but to be responsible for its own editorial freedom. Therefore the private print media have few obligations to be balanced towards candidates and political parties; consequently they are subject to less stringent regulation than the electronic media.

56. Arguments used to justify this position are:

1. Print media do not benefit from a public and limited commodity such as airwaves, therefore their obligation to impartiality and balance is less than that of the electronic media,

2. Print media have lower set-up costs than electronic media; therefore diversity of the print media is easier to achieve.

57. In transitional democracies where some print media is still owned by a public authority, there should be an obligation to offer a broad perspective of political views. Under no circumstances, should publicly funded newspapers become ‘party newspapers’ of the ruling government.

58. Direct access to the media by candidates and parties must ensure that conditions of equality among candidates are met. Regulations may determine the format of airtime, and the right of media to protect themselves against the dissemination of any illegal or improper material (particularly in respect of hate speech and defamation). Media should not be responsible for the actual content of free, or even paid airtime, such liability should be with the political party, or candidate which presented the material.

59. General provisions on hate speech are clearly stated in international treaties and conventions. However, one of the problems in an election campaign is the extent to which this kind of speech should be prohibited. It is advisable to impose minimum limits to individual freedom of expression, as the election campaign is the time when a variety of views can be expressed, even in an expressive manner. Provisions on this matter should take into consideration the specific situation of every country, particularly in post conflict countries, where restrictions may be imposed to avoid new tensions or violence among the population. The concept of hate speech should be related to the potential effect of the message on the audience. Direct incitement to acts of violence that may be acted upon should be restricted. Liability for expressions of incitement rests with the individual or party making the statement, provided that the media report it professionally.

60. Free airtime/space is a common practice in many countries often through the public media. Where this takes place, no registered parties or candidates should be excluded from receiving free airtime. Whenever such airtime is granted, this should be done in a fair and non-discriminatory manner, on the basis of transparent and objective criteria. The criteria to define a proportional formula could be based on the number of candidates standing, or on results in previous elections. During presidential elections, referenda, and for the first democratic elections, then the criteria of strict equality should be adopted. The compliance with provisions regulating the allocation of free airtime should be monitored by an independent body able to remedy any violations promptly.

61. Private electronic media are not usually obliged to allot free air time to election contestants. However when they decide to offer free air time, or they are obliged by law to do so, they should comply with the same provisions as the public broadcaster.

62. Paid political advertising is another opportunity for the political parties and candidates to disseminate their message through the media. In states where political parties and candidates are permitted to buy advertising space for electoral purposes, there is a requirement for some regulatory frameworks to be in place. Paid advertising may give an unfair advantage to those parties or candidates who can afford to purchase more airtime or space. If paid advertising is permitted it should comply with some basic rules:

1. It should guarantee to all contestants consistent and equal rates

2. Media should identify in a clear way paid airtime or sponsored slots, in order to allow voters to be aware of the political nature of the programme

3. Limits to the quantity of paid airtime parties are permitted to purchase may be imposed.

63. The issue of paid advertising in the print media is not so problematic. However, the press should follow the principle of equal opportunity. Paid advertising by political parties and candidates must be offered at consistent and equivalent rates. Limits to the amount of paid advertising parties are entitled to purchase may be imposed.

64. When publishing or broadcasting the results of opinion polls, the media should provide the public with the following information:

1. The name of the political party or other organisation or person who commissioned the poll

2. The methodology employed in conducting the poll

3. The sample and margin error of the poll

4. The date and period when the poll was conducted

65. Some countries prohibit the dissemination of opinion polls for a certain period before election day. All media should comply with rules regulating the dissemination of polling information before, after, or during voting. Any restriction forbidding the publication /broadcasting of opinion polls (or voting intentions), on voting day or a number of days before an election, should comply with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Similarly, in respect of exit polls, consideration should be given to prohibiting the reporting of such polls, until all the polling stations have closed.

66. The media should respect provisions in determining a reflection period on or before election day. If there is an electoral blackout decided by law, the election administration could specify rules and instructions to journalists on how to report political facts during the silence period.

IX. The new Media and the Internet

67. The new media enables the political system to diversify their campaign for different target audiences through the internet, and the potential use of text messages to mobile phones. The internet has widened the possibilities of communicating with a larger section of the population, by creating opportunities for voters to generate political views and opinions.

68. The traditional media, particularly television is still the main channel to communicate with the electorate, and political parties have yet to fully exploit the potential of the internet.

69. A controversial issue related to the role and obligations of the Internet in the electoral process, deals with what regulations should be imposed on web sites, particularly in respect of election blackout, and opinion polls. This matter is part of a wider debate on the degree of freedom the Internet should enjoy, and the extent to which regulations can be realistically applied to this medium. The World Wide Web is a pluralistic and unlimited media environment accessibly to everyone. The Internet remains largely unregulated, and many argue that it is neither possible, nor desirable to regulate it.

X. Legal Framework for Media – Election Regulation and Election Administration

70. In new democracies a clear regulatory legal framework is needed for media coverage of elections. Because of the weaknesses of the democratic system, self-regulatory measures are seldom sufficient to ensure pluralism and fair access to all contestants. Regulations for the media during an election campaign should leave no room for manipulation or misinterpretation. Regulations should be aimed primarily at protecting voters and candidates right to freedom of expression. Any limitations on media coverage should be imposed only for this purpose. Regulations may include elements that can unduly affect voters such as the dissemination of opinion polls, electoral blackout, hate speech, unequal access, and unfair treatment. Regulations should not be overly restrictive, and they should not unnecessarily impede media in their reporting and news coverage It would be wise to consult both media, and political party representatives during the drafting of regulations, thereby agreeing on a set of rules to which all actors have been involved.

71. The body implementing the regulation for media coverage during elections should be independent, credible, and legitimate for all competing political forces. The appointment of its members must not be under the exclusive control of the government.

72. The body entitled to supervise media coverage may be:

1. Self-regulatory body, such as a voluntary press council,

2. A body specifically created for the election period,

3. The main election body such as the Central Election Commission.

73. The implementing body should act on complaints of candidates and parties, or whenever it sees a violation, regardless of whether it has received complaints. The media or the complainants should have the right to contest decisions of the implementing body through timely, accessible and prompt judicial mechanism.

74. Where self-regulation does not provide criteria on what kind of programmes should be regulated, states should adopt measures ensuring that public and private broadcasters during the election period, present programmes which are fair, balanced, and impartial. This would apply to news and current affairs programmes, including discussion programmes, such as interviews or debates.

XI. Guidelines for Media Analysis

75. Media analysis is much more than simply monitoring the content of media coverage of an election campaign. The coverage will be dependent on the legal framework, as well as the context in which the elections take place. To give an adequate assessment of the role of the media during an election campaign, the media analyst should consider the media system as a whole, and there will need to focus on three main areas these are:

1. A study of the legal framework for the media,

2. Observation of the media landscape,

3. Monitoring of the media coverage of the election campaign.

76. The overall assessment should primarily be based on compliance with international standards, and the basic rights of the three key actors should be taken into account when producing an evaluation of the media during the electoral process:

1. The voters right to receive information on political alternatives, and the electoral process

2. The candidates and political parties right to impart information on their platforms and views

3. The freedom of the media to spread information and express their own views on issues of public interest

77. In addition to the above, the assessment can be based on two other yardsticks:

1. Compliance with national legislation, which in turn should be in accordance with international standards. The central questions to be answered are: was the legal framework in accordance with the political and legal commitments undertaken by the country? If so, were the national legal provisions respected?

2. Comparison with previous elections in the same country. In this case the question is: compared to previous elections was any improvement/worsening observed for freedom of expression and media coverage?

78. The media analysis should be able to produce findings on the level of the autonomy of the media system from the political system, and the level of diversity among the different media outlets.

79. In analysing the media landscape of a country, it will also be necessary for observation of the political environment. It will then be possible to make an assessment of the relationship between the political parties, and the media during the election campaign. In assessing the media landscape of a country, it is necessary to consider many factors including:

1. How many print and electronic media are operating in the country

2. Variety of public/state owned media, either electronic or print

3. Number of licences issues by the state at national or local level

4. Number of pirate stations operating, if any

5. The geographical coverage of the existing media

6. Hours of broadcasting, or frequencies of publication for every media outlet

7. Number of media dedicated to specific ethnic/linguistic minorities living in a country

8. The structure and transparency of ownership

9. Links between politicians and media

10. Number and ownership of news agencies, printing houses, and system of distribution

80. The media analyst should monitor and record any violations of freedom of expression of journalists and media associations. Any reported or observed violations should be recorded and verified. There may be occasions when the victim of harassment, violence, threats may be reluctant to file an official complaint.

81. Content analysis is a methodology used to measure the messages that the media convey. Focussing on the content of media messages is a useful way of measuring media performance and identifying bias. Elements taken into consideration for content analysis can be:

1. How many times a particular politician was mentioned,

2. How long was a party election broadcast,

3. How many times was a particular word used to describe a particular politician,

4. How many women candidates were quoted,

5. How many times was a particular campaign issues reported.

82. The main goal in content analysis in media monitoring of political communication during an election campaign is to understand the degree of pluralism of the media system under observation.

83. There will also be a requirement to analyse the content of the coverage, whether it is positive, negative or neutral.

84. Following analysis, the information should be included in reports which are easy to understand, and to read, but based on well grounded verifiable analysis. This can be through tables, charts and diagrams. Whatever format is used to present the results, short commentaries that stress the main findings resulting from the data should be added.

85. Media monitoring should produce reliable, objective results and conclusions. It is important that the findings of media monitoring are not only credible in themselves, but also that they are perceived as such. Monitors should be aware that their activity is the basis for reports, which may affect not only judgements on the election campaign, but also the credibility of the monitored media, and the public trust in them.

Comments by Ms Herdís Thorgeirsdóttir (substitute member, Iceland)

I. General

86. The focus of this report is to match the value of the media analysis and its theoretical and practical premises with the framework of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights[1] read in context of the Convention as a whole, not least Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention which explicitly provides that the Member States must undertake to hold free elections, which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. The language of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention is rather different to that of the other substantive articles of the Convention and its Protocols, being expressed as an obligation imposed on states, rather than as a right of individuals.[2] It is hence quite relevant to assess the analytical framework of the OSCE guidelines within the context of Convention objectives where the realisation of these two rights taken together is essential for the furtherance and maintenance of a democratic society. The Member States of the Council of Europe must ensure that voters have access to a free press.

87. The content and structure of this report is to highlight the issues that provide the basis of the media analysis and come up with simple suggestions with regard to the analytical framework that might provide a constructive and precise method in framing the problem in a coherent perspective given its multi-faceted nature. The focus is limited to the fundamental legal question of the OSCE methodology, the correlation of the main components of freedom of expression, the right to impart and the right to receive read in conjunction with the obligation of governments to hold free elections where the legitimacy of the outcome is measured with the level of knowledge of the electorate.

88. The OSCE/ODIHR media monitoring methodology if properly followed may serve the dual purpose of producing reliable results and hence provide guidelines not only for the media and citizens but also for the respective regulatory bodies to adjust measures to the conflicting issues impeding responsible media performance in particular during election periods.

89. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers recommended in 1999 that Member States should take appropriate steps for the effective protection of journalists and other media personnel and their premises, as this assumes a greater significance during elections. At the same time, this protection should not obstruct them in carrying out their work. The recommendation emphasised the fundamental principle of editorial independence, which assumes a special importance in election periods. Regulatory measures may not, however, interfere with the editorial independence of the printed press.[3] The recommendation distinguishes between broadcast media and print media in this sense, confirming the fixed view that TV audiences are more credulous than readers of newspapers. The emphasis on a certain period over another illustrates the perception that reporters are in a weaker position during election periods or that external forces are more encroaching during such periods (which has a point). The struggle for political power is, however, not confined to clearly defined cycles.

90. The core issue of the OSCE/ODIHR media monitoring is surveillance of freedom of political debate in the media. The Committee of Ministers in a Declaration (in February 2004) on the freedom of political debate in the media stated that humorous and satirical genre allows an even wider degree of exaggeration and provocation, as long as the public is not misled about facts. [4] It recalled its Resolution (74) 26 on the right of reply – position of the individual in relation to the press and its recommendation on measures concerning media coverage of election campaigns (99) 15 reaffirming the pre-eminent importance of a free and independent media for guaranteeing the right of the public to be informed.

91. In Strasbourg jurisprudencepolitical debate enjoys the highest protection under Article 10. In the case of Thorgeirson v. Iceland,the European Court of Human Rights rejected the Icelandic government’s contention that political discussion concerned mainly high politics; it also covered other matters of public concern.[5] In March 2002 the Court made clear that the scope of political debate and public matters includes corporate matters. When the ties between political and business activities overlap it may give rise to public discussion – even when writings in the press are based on slim factual bases.[6] Strasbourg jurisprudence attachesparticular importance to the duties and responsibilities of those who avail themselves of their right to freedom of expression, ‘and in particular journalists’.[7] Investigative journalism has become recognised as one of the main tools in fighting corruption although resistance of the established media in this matter may create difficulties due to the enduring and strong ties with political and corporate power.[8] Any interference with journalistic effort to reveal corruption in high places is acknowledged by the Court as requiring strict scrutiny. The Committee of Ministers called attention to the role of journalism in fighting corruption in a recommendation in 2000: ‘[C]orruption represents a serious threat to the rule of law, democracy, human rights, equity and social justice; it hinders economic development and endangers the stability of democratic institutions and the moral foundations of society’.[9]

92. The need to afford the press all the safeguards it needs to carry out its role as the public watchdog[10] is increasingly highlighted. The OSCE/ODIHR guidelines on media analysis underscore the inevitability of affirmative action.

93. The methodology of the media analysis per se seems on the whole technically acceptable although such analyses are bound to be complex due to the expansion of the research, the scope of the problem and the diverse conditions in the media field.

94. The media in modern societies is subject to the interaction of legal regulation, control of the market and the struggle of self-regulation in this relationship. If this correlation is constructed in a logical argument from the start the methodological basis of the media analysis may become sharper and more revealing of legal as well other controversies. A good starting point to pursue clear results and findings is to noticeably identify the basic areas of the problem.

95. This report recommends that the analytical framework of media analyses is confined to three constructive areas and that the focus is first and foremost on the right to impart information and ideas of all kinds; the law regulating journalism and the potential extent of public interference to restrict or enhance this right; the impact of the economic logic for the privately owned media and the capacity of journalists to live up to the role imposed on them in jurisprudence.[11]

a. Legal regulation

96. Legal regulation does not entail fixed positive obligations with regard to the printed press such as rules on access, fairness and impartiality while broadcasting licenses are usually conditioned on compliance with such rules. Convention case law, however, explicitly submits that it is incumbent on the press, the print media as well as the audiovisual media[12] to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest, which the public has the right to receive.[13] In so doing the media must not overstep the bounds set out in paragraph 2 of Article 10 such as hurting the rights and reputation of others. On the last account the media can be held liable while there are no sanctions or remedies in cases where the print media ignores its positive duties of imparting to the public all matters of general interest.[14] The positive requirements are usually not entrenched in legal codes and it is hence difficult to show how they can be violated or brought under review of the exception to the right.

b. Market regulation

97. Broadcasting independent of ownership is most widely subject to legal regulation although the principles applying to public service broadcasting according to Council of Europe standards differ from broadcasting for purely commercial or political reasons because of its specific remit, in terms of content and access; it must guarantee editorial independence and impartiality; provide a benchmark of quality; offer a variety of programmes and services catering for the needs of all groups in society and be publicly accountable.[15] The interaction of legal regulation with market regulation is highlighted in the concern of the Parliamentary Assembly that: “Public service broadcasting, a vital element of democracy in Europe, is under threat. It is challenged by political and economic interests, by increasing competition from commercial media, by media concentrations and by financial difficulties. It is also faced with the challenge of adapting to globalisation and the new technologies.”[16] The Recommendation favours concerted action by the various limbs of the Council of Europe in order to “ensure proper and transparent monitoring, assistance and, where necessary, pressure, so that Member States undertake the appropriate legislative, political and practical measures in support of public service broadcasting”. There is an emerging consensus on the necessity of enhancing the role of public service broadcasting within the Member States of the Council of Europe due to ownership concentration on the media market, as recognised in a recent report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.[17]

c. Self-regulation

98. Journalism is not only dependent on an affirmative appraisal of the market but also the good will of authorities which due to corporate funding in politics often have close ties with the business community, which does not facilitate self-regulation leading to responsible and mature journalistic coverage. Whatever the amount of financial pressure on journalism, the mere presence of the power of the business community and the unclear division between it and the political sphere is a reminder of the much more complex ways of “interference” not prescribed by law at the dawn of the 21^st century rather than at the conception of the Convention in 1950. The American Convention on Human Rights, which entered into force in 1978 presumes and thus prohibits the threat to media freedom of private controls[18] as well as the abuse of government. The media fighting for independence from external pressures is, in many of the Council of Europe Member States, the victim of precarious economic conditions, which make it easy prey for mighty political and economic interests.[19]

99. Certain legal controversies in the OSCE/ODIHR methodological framework need further scrutiny to fill in the gaps of the theoretical background to render the outcome more scientific. This may also benefit prospective media regulation and ultimately support the development of coherent and consistent supra national standards concerning responsible journalism during sensitive periods like elections. The issues deserving closer scrutiny are:

a. An explicit enumeration of the relevant treaty based rights for portraying a realistic picture of the legal environment of the media.

b. The distinct treatment of journalism depending on type of medium, i.e. regulation of broadcasting and hands off policy in case of printed press.

c. The assumed efficiency of pluralism of media outlets and diversity of voices.

d. The principle of editorial freedom and self-regulation.

II. International legal framework (legal regulation)

100. Reference to international standards and benchmarks provides the basis for the methodology for assessing how the media behave during an election campaign. It is recommended with regard to the OSCE commitments that there is clear distinction between de lege lata and de lege ferenda. A number of standards that the OSCE accentuates are not recognised as having clear basis in law, independent of their feasibility in enhancing democratic societies. An authoritative source of the interpretation of these standards is the European Court of Human Rights but the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) is modelled on the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) as is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Both treaties set forth the principle of freedom of expression which most of these standards can be traced to although there is not a uniform interpretation as to their legal value and implementation in reality, for example access rights to the media and the right of journalists to act in accordance with ethical rules. They may be widely accepted interpretations without having a legal standing. There are many unclear areas that are bound to affect the application of the media monitoring system. What is presented as selected OSCE commitments[20] is more or less the emerging legal guidance in the fast developing area of media law on the basis of the general principle of freedom of expression, as widely protected in constitutions and international and regional human rights treaties. At the same time there are significant and crucial differences in the basic texts of the major human rights instruments when thoroughly scrutinised and vast asymmetries in terms of what can be expected of public authorities in guaranteeing a properly functioning media.

101. It may reduce the value of the OSCE/ODIHR guidelines in light of their proposed universality to require that the legal framework regulating media and the campaign during the election process should be consistent with the principles set forth in the field of freedom of expression[21] without specifying more clearly a lowest common denominator. The principles of freedom of expression as protected in for instance two regional treaties, the European Convention on Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, vary in their scope and substance. The latter treaty in principle offers much wider protection for example against oppression of private parties in the sphere of the media.[22] The ECHR has been interpreted as to an extent offering such protections[23] while such principles in private relations do not have a clear legal treaty basis.

102. It is recommended that a. in light of the fact that the international legal standards are directed at regulating the behaviour of governments in relation to the media[24] and b. that public authorities shall refrain from interfering in the workings of the media and c. when necessary shall impose positive measures to promote pluralism and to protect them from attacks or undue pressures,[25] that the desired positive measures are clarified in relation to the objective and explicitly described with regard to feasible and realistic options that authorities can resort to in order to achieve this goal.

103. The importance of ensuring that media are given the widest possible latitude during election periods is emphasised with reference to Recommendation 99 (15) by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe as an important reference for the assessment of election campaign coverage.[26]

104. In light of the extensive summary of international standards concerning a free and responsible media it would be desirable that the guidelines of the media analysis are explicit and simple taking into consideration unsolved legal controversies still affecting the media landscape and media performance: for example questioning the distinct requirements made to broadcasters on the one hand and the hands off policy with regard to the printed press on the other, which may render the desired objective irresolute in light of the significance of political coverage in newspapers as well as broadcasting during election periods.

III. Market regulation of the right to impart

105. The extent of respect for journalistic ethics within media institutions is highlighted in chapter 2 of the OSCE document which is an analysis of the issues concerning media, politics and elections. It is pointed out that the media tends to support a political agenda that favours the corporate interests of their owner. For this reason a model is suggested to analyse the impact of ownership, advertising and the ideological benchmarks, for example when the media accepts without questioning free market economics and does not allow scope for any real criticism thereof. Hence a one sided view of the world shapes the political coverage. Monopolies and manipulation of the information flow present a threat to journalistic activities and ultimately democracy.

106. The right to receive has in recent decades been interpreted as the need to protect the public from the press itself[27] due to the manipulation factor. The problem however is that the right is not self-executing,[28] in particular with regard to the positive requirements imposed on the press.[29] This in turn sheds light on the importance of guaranteeing the imparting process particular protection.[30]

107. Despite the realisation of public and private threats on editorial independence discussed in the OSCE/ODIHR overview, self-regulation in journalism seems a foregone conclusion. Responsible journalism is described as stemming from the reliance of journalists on a code of ethics. The document accentuates the significance of a socially responsible media where media professionals adhere to a code of conduct, stating that no code of conduct will guarantee professional journalism unless the political, social and economic systems allow journalists to carry out their duties freely.

108. Self-regulation within the media means that journalists adhere to the codes of conduct adopted by journalists’ association widely. Such self-regulation is seen as approaching some form of press responsibility without being subject to state control.[31] The profession is to monitor and discipline its own. The voluntary conduct means that editors and journalists submit their decisions under critical examination and is typically applicable where editorial discretion is crucial in evaluating the bounds that are not to be overstepped for the protection of the reputation of others. Although codes contain integrity rules, where journalists are assumed to act in accordance with the duty to inform the public, the staff of the media has little support in going against vital corporate/political interests. Ethical performance may be more difficult during election periods.

109. An important aspect of the media monitoring instrument is to highlight cases of undue interference in the editorial freedom of the media or attempts to undermine their independence. This is the weakest part of the analysis and its weakest guarantee as is further discussed here below. The media are classified by the type of medium, print or electronic, and the kind of ownership. The role of the print media is analysed as complementing the role of broadcasting where the latter can reach large segments of the population while the print media may be dominant in analysing and forming public opinion.[32]

110. The OSCE/ODIHR guidelines are based on the view that significant differences exist between the print and the broadcast media. Publicly funded broadcasters must provide a complete and impartial picture of the entire political spectrum in their coverage of election; private broadcasters should also abide by standards of impartiality in their news and current affairs and offer fair and accurate coverage of elections. The view is however accepted that the print media is entitled to partisanship but should adhere to journalistic ethics while simultaneously it is recognised that their journalists are not protected from pressures from their editors or political pressures.

111. Inherent in Recommendation 99 (15) referred to above (paragraph 7) is an unacknowledged bias recognised by many scholars in media law, that of the different treatment of the printed press and broadcasting. It follows from the reading of Article 10 that rules on licensing broadcasting in the Member States of the Council of Europe must meet the requirements of Article 10 of the European Convention and have to be necessary in a democratic society in one or more of the interests which freedom of expression is conditioned on. The Recommendation 99 (15) explicitly submits that: Regulatory frameworks on media coverage of elections may not interfere with the editorial independence of the print media.

112. Accordingly the guarantee to scrutinise undue interference in the editorial freedom of the media is not valid in case of the print media, which means that the main argument of the media analysis collapses.

113. It is important to point out here that the distinction referred to between editorial freedom of printed press and that of broadcasting have not been underscored to this degree in the European Court’s case law.

114. The principles regarding the social responsibilities of the press are formulated primarily with regard to the print media although they doubtless apply also to the audiovisual media, as the Court explicitly submitted in the case of Jersild v. Denmark where it also stated: “Whilst the press must not overstep the bounds set, inter alia, in the interest of "the protection of the reputation or rights of others”, it is nevertheless incumbent on it to impart information and ideas of public interest. Not only does the press have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right to receive them. Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of “public watchdog”.[33]

115. The Court’s distinction is predominantly concerned with the immediate impact of broadcasting and it has therefore underscored that the principle of the diversity of views in broadcasting is especially valid in relation to audio-visual media, whose programmes are often broadcast very widely.[34] The Court has furthermore submitted that: “In considering the “duties and responsibilities” of a journalist, the potential impact of the medium concerned is an important factor and it is commonly acknowledged that the audiovisual media have often a much more immediate and powerful effect than the print media.[35] The audiovisual media have means of conveying through images meanings which the print media are not able to impart.”[36] In more recent case law the Court has submitted with respect to a prohibited measure (political advertising), which was applied only to radio and television broadcasts, and not to other media such as the press, “while the domestic authorities may have had valid reasons for this differential treatment, a prohibition of political advertising which applies only to certain media, and not to others, does not appear to be of a particularly pressing nature.”[37]

116. The duty ascribed to the printed press in the European Court’s case law means that there is not an autonomous zone surrounding editorial freedom of newspapers. It is not for the Court or for the national courts for that matter, to substitute their own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting is adopted by journalists. In this context the Court recalls that Article 10 protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed.[38]

117. According to Convention case law states cannot absolve themselves from responsibility by devolving authority to private bodies or individuals.[39] The Court does not regard it as its task to indicate which means a State should utilise in order to perform its obligations under the Convention.[40] If it however so happens that fundamental rights are crushed by private parties the State is responsible.

118. There are subsequently four issues that may be taken more into account in the methodological basis of the OSCE/ODIHR guidelines:

a. Political debate is sacrosanct in Strasbourgjurisprudence.[41]

b. The duty to uphold this political debate applies to newspapers and broadcasting media.

c. The state is the ultimate guarantor of diversity of news and views in the media.[42]

d. According to Convention case law states cannot absolve themselves from responsibility by devolving authority to private bodies or individuals.[43]

IV. Self-regulation in light of legal framework and market

119. The OSCE/ODIHR guidelines emphasize the importance of consistency of the legal framework regulating the media and the campaign during the election process with international law. The need to amend internal contradictory or conflicting laws is also accentuated.[44]

120. Again, it must be recommended that the OSCE/ODIHR guidelines intended to assess the role of the media during an election campaign clearly distinguish which aspects of international law are to provide the framework and where such standards are completely at odds with market regulation. The guidelines should not try to solve the irresolute by referring to self-regulation which amounts to little where there is no clear legal standard and business concerns go far beyond ethical rules and where much of the press is not dedicated to the purpose of the press, to the discharge of the public responsibility.

121. Although the reservation is made that self-regulatory measures are seldom efficient to ensure pluralism and fair access to all contestants, the OSCE/ODIHR guidelines assert that regulation during election periods should have a light touch but that the system of self-regulation “may be more advisable when conditions facilitate responsible and mature journalistic coverage”.[45] The European Federation of Journalists has underscored the threats arising from media globalisation, which may lead to more opportunities for commercial exploitation of the information market but which will diminish pluralism and diversity in journalism.[46] Clearly, there are many loopholes with regard to self-regulation not least where it is automatically assumed to be functioning without any legal support.

122. This report suggests that an explanation is given of what are the “conditions facilitating responsible and mature journalistic coverage.”[47]

123. The Court has submitted that it is obligatory for journalists to adhere to the professions’ ethical codes in order to enjoy Article 10 protection.[48] It is, however, difficult to uphold public service values by individual journalists if they are not clearly stipulated in the law and if they do not enjoy particular protection in so doing.

124. The growing case-law on press freedom since the late 1970s has incrementally developed the substantial guarantee that Article 10 of the Convention affords the press in attending to its obligations. Given the pre-eminent role of the press in democratic society the Court acknowledges its right to battle against authorities yet without sufficient guarantee that the press will stand or stands a chance to succeed. In the case of Goodwin v. the United Kingdom,the Court established that journalists might be distinguished from ordinary citizens when exercising Article 10 rights.[49] This approach is in congruity with, for example, the constitutional protection enjoyed by the press to conduct its ‘public function’ in Germany.Some newsgathering privileges have been adopted under Article 10 as compatible with the democratic mission of the press to conduct investigative journalism. In Goodwin v. United Kingdomthe Court referred to the protection of journalistic sources as one of the basic conditions for press freedom. Such a protection is certainly an important step in underscoring that the press needs ‘extra protection’ to guarantee the public’s right to receive information.

125. Certain inconsistencies in Convention jurisprudence and European standards will have to be kept in mind when guidelines intended to improve media performance during election periods are set forth. The situation within the media is subject to insidious and uncontrollable forces that have not been sufficiently revealed to provide a legal base for practical and efficient remedies.[50]

126. The proposed supervisory body implementing the regulation for media coverage and the suggested complaint procedures and appeals mechanism seem in full conformity with the underlying principles of Council of Europe standards with regard to electoral matters and media performance in democratic societies. It is however difficult to see how such a supervisory body is “to monitor the respect of the rules”[51] when they are mainly de lege ferenda.

127. It is recommended that the guidelines place more emphasis on the states’ obligation to guarantee the right to impart, explicitly protected in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is recognised that the ability of the media to resist various pressures during election periods, depends on their strength and autonomy.[52] The European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence holds that journalists dispose of their Article 10 protection if they do not adhere to the ethical rules of their profession[53] and that it is incumbent on them to impart the truth concerning public affairs.[54] The guidelines provide that “any measures or actions promoting or causing self-censorship among journalists should be considered as an attack on their editorial freedom”.[55] Evidently physical attacks and harassment resulting in disappearances and killings of journalists require that states adopt positive measures in order to guarantee not only the right to freedom of expression but also the fundamental right to life and to be free from torture.[56] The right to life is an obligation erga omnes in contemporary international law. The right to freedom of expression within the media does not have such a clear legal standing. There is emerging jurisprudence on the necessity of the legal protection of journalists’ sources and on the protection of journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions. But there are still no laws in place that offer journalists protection in their work. Self-censorship is widely thought to be a cause for concern while it must be regarded as a serious violation of the principle of freedom of expression demanding laws strictly prohibiting the dismissal of a journalist or other forms of retaliation affecting status or earnings.

128. The OSCE/ODIHR guidelines specify the direct and overt pressures that journalists are faced with, “even within well-established democracies”.[57] The guidelines stress the norms regulating media during the election campaign should be clearly stated and should leave no room for manipulation or misinterpretation.[58] This is looking into the failure and demanding improvements. When there is no law explicitly limiting ownership control or manipulation of news coverage, unequal access and unfair treatment and all sorts of insidious tactics it is doubtful whether brushing off the problem by referring it to journalists, who have no say in the matter if such demands go against their superiors or the wishes of media owners, is of any help.

129. The failure of self-regulation results from the need of the medium to survive as a business entity. The first consideration is to make profit and other considerations such as public accountability and responsible coverage of political subjects must yield to the main objective. It may even seem more demanding to adopt a legal framework that enables journalists to adhere to their positive duties than to establish rules concerning the negative requirements. Self-regulation is after all much more capable of rectifying inaccuracy that is already evident, such as perversion, intrusion or harassment. The impact of self-regulation in this form does not extend further than at times fixing the obvious but there is no guarantee that it will fill the gap of market failure or increase responsibility of the media.

130. It is recommended that the guidelines distinguish between damaging types of expression, punishable by law and even prohibited on the one hand and rules of integrity on the other hand which are found in some ethics codes (Sweden) and provide guidance to journalists in carrying out their responsibilities but are not legally enforceable. The duties and rights of journalists derive from the public’s right to know facts and opinions but there is no guarantee that journalists adhere to these duties. The ethics codes may submit that the responsibility of journalists towards the public has priority over any other responsibility, particularly the responsibility to their employers and the state organs (Switzerland).It must however be kept in mind that in order to act in accordance with the codes journalists must enjoy real protection against job dismissal or other forms of retaliation if their conduct goes against the corporate or political interests of their employers.

131. Journalists cannot use the Convention as a basis of complaint against their ‘oppressors’ if the latter are preventing them from adhering to their codes of conduct, albeit the Court has held that such is the duty of journalists if they want to enjoy the safeguards of Article 10.[59] The predominant rule of most journalistic codes is: “Respect for truth and for the right of the public to truth is the first duty of the journalist.”[60] The political debate in the forum of the media can be easily restricted and manipulated without constituting an evident breach of Article 10. The infringement is real if it is an act of public authorities, but it is in the grey zone if the violator is a private party. The legal basis for action against journalists or the media are questionable in real life situations where it is hard to prove the infringement of generalised formulations because a detailed and precise description of the alleged activity and victim is lacking. The problem of violation of fundamental rights in the ‘private sphere’ has increased extensively, inter alia due to privatisation of public bodies, since the adoption of the Convention.

132. It should be recommended that the report makes a clear distinction between the freedom of the media as a classical freedom seeking autonomy from the state and the duty of the media, when it is asserted that managers and owners should accept the principles of journalistic ethics and independence and they should not exert pressure on their employees to act at variance with these principles.[61]

133. The European Court of Human Rights has elaborated on the behaviour of media owners and it has acknowledged the Drittwirkung factor or third party effect on fundamental rights.[62] In the case of Özturk v. Turkeyin 1999 the Court stated:

“Admittedly, publishers do not necessarily associate themselves with the opinion expressed in the works they publish. However, by providing authors with a medium, publishers participate in the exercise of the freedom of expression, just as they are vicariously subject to the ‘duties and responsibilities’, which authors take on when they disseminate their opinions to the public.”[63]

134. It should be pointed out with regard to the role of internet in elections that the content providers of many web sites may be subject to the same pressures as journalists of the traditional media.

135. Another possible misconstruction on the basis of OSCE/ODIHR methodology and a common assumption submitted in the guidelines is that a variety of media outlets “with differing editorial policies can still ensure the voters’ rights to receive diverse and varied information as well as the candidates’ right to put forward their platforms.”[64]

136. A variety of media outlets does not automatically mean that editorial policies differ.

137. A democratic government needs diversity of voices to live up to its ideals. Diversity of voices can be achieved through diversity of media outlets and diversity of ownership. Competition law may prevent monopolies in media markets but such laws are economic laws and they may guarantee competitive marketplaces but not diversity of ideas and opinions circulating within these markets. The economic logic of such an environment may foster journalism that relies on the goodwill of advertisers rather than journalism that has a priority in serving the public in accordance with the objectives of public international law.

138. As submitted in a recent report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe concerning media monopolisation: Plurality of markets does not equal plurality of content.[65] A well functioning economic market is not sufficient to secure an independent, free and pluralistic press. More is needed than competition law to break up monopolies.[66] Constitutional scholars have pointed to the fact that despite quite strict, long standing anti-trust rules in the United States, programmes in the media are very homogenous.[67] A democratically determined speech may not result in a pluralistic political agenda since to survive on the market the media must please those who really run the show.

139. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Resolution 1003 (1993), emphasised that journalism is a part of a corporate structure and that legitimate respect for publisher’s and owner’s ideological orientations is limited by the absolute requirements on truthful news reporting and ethical opinions to respect the citizen’s fundamental right to information.[68] Resolution 1003 recommended rules governing editorial staff to regulate relations between the journalists and the publishers and proprietors within the media separately from the normal requirements of labour relations.[69] It furthermore made clear that ‘entrepreneurial objectives have to be limited by the conditions for providing access to a fundamental right’.[70]

140. It is recommended that corporate journalism is not set aside as a marginal problem. Attention must be turned to the legal obligations of all types of news media as public watchdogs and how its proper function can be guaranteed independent of the factors impeding its operation.

V. Rights of others (voters)

141. OSCE/ODIHR guidelines accentuate the right of voters, the rights of candidates and parties during election periods.[71] This approach of the guidelines in guaranteeing the rights of others may be backed by the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in its case law on the positive duty of the State in guaranteeing free elections and the need for voters to have access to a free press.

142. The Court in Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium stated: “According to the Preamble of the Convention, fundamental human rights and freedoms are best maintained by an ‘effective political democracy’. Since it enshrines a characteristic principle of democracy, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is accordingly of prime importance in the Convention system.”[72] The right to receive information from the media is closely linked to the electoral process as reflected in the wording of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which states:

“The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions, which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature.”[73]

143. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[74] provides inter alia that every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity without unreasonable restrictions to vote and be elected at genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors. One of the drafters of Article 25 of the ICCPR stated that ‘no government is valid unless it reposes on the will of the majority’.[75]

144. To the extent that the Convention authorities have had to address Article 3 of Protocol 1[76] they have attached considerable significance to it.[77] Article 3 of Protocol 1 creates a positive obligation on member states to ‘hold’ democratic elections.[78] The Commission has taken the view that this provision entails “universal suffrage”[79] and then, as a consequence, the concept of subjective rights of participation, the “right to vote” and the “right to stand for election to the legislature”. The Court has held that Article 3 of Protocol 1 does not create an obligation to introduce a specific electoral system, provided that the system employed ensures “equality of treatment of all citizens in the exercise of their right to vote and their right to stand for election”.[80] In exercising its ultimate supervision the Court takes into consideration “that features that would be unacceptable in the context of one system may be justified in the context of another, at least so long as the chosen system provides for conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”.[81]

145. A textual interpretation of this provision taken in conjunction with Article 10 would prohibit any efforts to manipulate and process information with the aim of misinforming the public.[82] Like its counterpart Article 15 of the ICCPR, Article 3 of Protocol 1 presupposes that the conditions for the media to exercise its corollary function of the public’s right to receive are not controlled by a few people or manipulated to exclude criticism and political opposition. In reality access to the media in order to ensure a wide variety of news and views, necessary to respond to the need of the populace for an analytical picture of the world, is not wide open to adversary opinions to promote the emergence of ‘a sufficiently clear and coherent political will’.[83] A monopolistic media market, imparting tendentious information to the public, does not ensure the conditions necessary to guarantee the free expression of the popular will. Such a situation is an example of non-governmental interference curtailing on a wide scale fundamental human rights to the extent of severely threatening the democratic fabric. Dissidents or those opposing the hegemony of big business in society are inhibited by the cost of media access. Their rights are infringed and this affects the rights of others to form an opinion.

146. The Court has made clear that political rights referred to in the Travaux Préparatoires with regard to interpretation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 means that the commitment is not merely thought of in relation to justifying interference, that the primary obligation is not one of abstention or non-interference but one of adoption by the state of positive measures.[84] The scope of the Convention can be expanded beyond what the drafters intended fifty years ago due to the fact that circumstances have changed.[85] The states have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere without curtailing the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and legitimate aim. In particular the conditions within the states must not ‘thwart the free expression of the opinion in the choice of the legislature’.[86] As the Court has reiterated the essential role of the press is ‘in ensuring the proper functioning of a political democracy’.[87] The importance of the media is clear in this respect. The media is one of the means to see that government carries on its business in public, bringing about the transparency of power without masks.[88] An independent and responsible media is one of the essential prerequisites of ensuring the free formation of public opinion preceding elections.

147. The Venice Commission has submitted that equality of opportunity between parties and candidates requires that the main political forces should be able to voice their opinions in the main organs of the country’s media. Accordingly this right must be clearly regulated with due respect for freedom of expression and failure to observe the right to equality of opportunity in this regard should be subject to appropriate sanctions. The Venice Commission emphasised the fact that media failure to provide impartial information about the election campaign and candidates is one of the most frequent shortcomings arising during elections. The Venice Commission hence suggested that in conformity with freedom of expression, a legal provision should be made to ensure that there is minimum access to privately owned audiovisual media, with regard to election campaign and that spending by political parties may likewise be limited in order to guarantee equality of opportunity.[89]

VI. Sensitive issues, bench marks and best practices according to OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines

148. There are various issues dealt with under this heading in chapter III of the OSCE/ODIHR document such as how much media coverage may be regulated during elections; basic guidelines are that public broadcasters should provide parties and candidates in elections with equal access and that coverage must follow criteria of balanced, pluralistic and impartial reporting. Private broadcasters must comply with national legislation in this matter and the same goes for the private print media.

149. One of the most difficult questions concerning the much-desired balanced dialogue and the vital importance of free political communication, not least during election periods, concerns open access to broadcasting, reconciling the claims of those who demand access with the importance of using broadcasting as an efficient method of communication. Given the wide impact of the audiovisual media, which the Court recognises in particular, the question is whether those controlling access to broadcasting are obliged to tend to some form of balancing in allowing access or whether they have full discretion in these matters.[90] It is well established in Convention jurisprudence that Article 10 does not give a citizen or private organization a ‘general and unfettered right’ to put forward an opinion through the media unless in ‘exceptional circumstances’.[91] Such circumstances may occur for instance if one political party is excluded from broadcasting facilities at election time while other parties are given broadcasting time.[92]

150. Access to the media would seem to serve both the right to impart and also the right to receive because readers and audiences have a right to be exposed to different political perspectives.[93] Article 10 guarantees the right to impart and the right to receive but neither broadcasting stations nor newspapers are open to all. The Commission declared inadmissible an application under Article 10 from an independent candidate for the European Parliament who was not allowed to make a party political broadcast.[94] The complaint concerned the BBC’s threshold requirement of a minimum percentage of seats in an election before a party could qualify for an election broadcast. The Commission recognised that airtime is limited and thus the threshold was compatible with Article 10 § 2 to ensure that airtime was spent on political views that commanded some public support.[95]

151. In the case of Purcell v. Ireland,[96] journalists and producers employed by Radio Telefis Eirann (RTE) complained that an order restricting live interviews with members of Sinn Fein constituted an unjustifiable interference with freedom of expression and was a serious infringement with their right to impart information to the public in a democratic society and of their right to receive information without unnecessary interference by public authority. The Commission noted that the Irish broadcasting ban on live interviews with spokesmen of Sinn Fein, not an unlawful organization (albeit not denied that it was an integral part of the IRA an illegal organization), had a legitimate aim under Article 10 § 2 in conjunction with Article 17. In assessing whether the ban was necessary it referred to the ‘duties and responsibilities’ inherent in the exercise of freedom of expression and ‘that the defeat of terrorism is a public interest of the first importance in a democratic society . . . and where advocates of violence seek access to the mass media for publicity purposes it is particularly difficult to strike a fair balance between the requirements of protecting freedom of information and the imperatives of protecting the state and the public against armed conspiracies seeking to overthrow the democratic order, which guarantees this freedom and other human rights’.[97] The Commission referred to the ‘immediate’ impact of television as opposed to the print media, furthermore the limited possibilities of correcting or qualifying broadcasting material, as opposed to the print media. The ‘immediacy factor’ was too much of a risk. Even conscientious journalists could not control it within the exercise of their professional judgment.[98]

152. Jörg Haider complained under Article 10 that the way in which the ÖRF (Austrian Broadcasting Corporation) reported on news events in general and on him in particular did not meet the requirements of plurality of information and objectivity as required by society.[99] The Commission dismissed Haider’s complaint under Article 25 stating that he did not qualify as a victim since complaining as a representative for the people in general constituted ‘actio popularis’.

153. The limited access to broadcasting has led to such speculations that the right protected under Article 10 in the democratic context is of little value if those who wish to express their ideas are denied access to either publicly or privately owned channels or communication. There is no real freedom of expression if one is prevented from speaking to one’s target audience, or at least those who wish to hear; hence those without access to the media are not really free to express their views.[100] In order to make up their mind, voters need to be exposed to more views than those of the party they intend to vote for or end up voting for. That is the antecedent reasoning underlying all the case-law guaranteeing political debate the highest protection. Democracy is implausible without plurality, broadmindedness and tolerance, its characteristic features.[101] Undermining political pluralism, which along with the rule of law ‘forms the basis of all genuine democracy’ may constitute an infringement of Article 10.[102] The Court is willing to safeguard outspoken criticisms, provided it does not incite violence against the state or other citizens.

154. The OSCE/ODIHR guidelines propose that parties and candidates shall be provided with direct access in the public media free of charge. With regard to private electronic media, it is suggested that an election administration body may allocate part of its budget to cover payment for airtime.[103]

155. The OSCE/ODIHR guidelines' suggestion of reimbursement to the privately owned media[104] for allotting free airtime to election candidates is an option worthy of serious consideration.

VII. Content regulation and right of reply

156. It is suggested that all media should permit a right of reply and corrections within their programmes or publications. This rule relies on the same principle of balanced and fair treatment of the candidates, which should be respected by all media during the campaign.

157. Related to access rights, but distinct as well, is the claim that individuals be given an opportunity to reply to unfair coverage. The right to reply refers to factual allegations in the media. The primary importance of this right is remedial, to redress wrongs to the individual.[105]

158. The right to reply is firmly secured with regard to broadcasting in the Convention on Transfrontier Television, Article 8. It implies that each transmitting party shall ensure that every natural or legal person regardless of nationality or place of residence shall have the opportunity to exercise a right of reply or seek other comparable legal or administrative remedies relating to programmes transmitted by broadcasters within its jurisdiction, within the meaning of Article 5 (duties of transmitting parties). In particular, it shall ensure that timing and other arrangements for the exercise of the right of reply are such that this right can be effectively exercised.

159. The American Convention on Human Rights (1976) adds the right to reply in a special Article 14 with special regard to the press, its duties and the rights of others, ‘injured by inaccurate or offensive statements or ideas disseminated to the public in general’. To make this right effective with regard to the press, Article 14 § 3 makes it mandatory that every medium shall have a person responsible for imparted material.

160. Various jurisdictions have incorporated statutory rights to reply in their mechanisms for regulation of the media.[106] The right to reply centres upon individuals or legal persons who can claim injury or financial loss if the impugned media coverage is not corrected. The objective of this right is to rectify individual cases rather than serve the democratic principles requiring diversity of views. Icelandic law on the right to print includes a provision on the duty of rectification.[107] In Sweden thereis no legal right to reply. The matter is left to the Swedish Press Council to regulate according to its Code of Ethics. A Press Ombudsman also provides some protection.[108]

161. The United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the right to reply with regard to the print media is unconstitutional thereby preventing legislative attempts to grant any access rights to print journalism. The case of Miami Herald v. Tornillo,[109] introduced a distinction into the law between broadcasting and publishing.[110] The case had arisen in Floridaunder the state’s ‘right to reply’ statute. The Miami Herald had refused to print a reply by a political candidate, Pat Tornillo, to a blistering editorial on him. When the politician asked for his right to reply in the column of the Herald, his request was denied, so he sued. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower Court’s decision, which had ruled in favour of the newspaper, maintaining that the Floridaright to reply statute furthered ‘the broad societal interest in the free flow of information’. The Supreme Court of the United States lastly struck down the Florida statute maintaining that even if a newspaper would face no additional costs to comply with compulsory access law and would not be forced to forgo publication by the inclusion of a reply, the Florida statute failed to clear the barriers of the First Amendment because of its intrusion into the function of editors. The Supreme Court held that a mandatory right to reply contravened editorial control and judgment. In short, statutory access rights to print journalism were unconstitutional because such legislation required publishers to use their resources to promote opinions they did not share.

162. As the right to reply refers to factual allegations in the media and is a remedy to redress wrongs to individuals making it mandatory does not seem an infringement of editorial independence nor can it be classified as a form of content regulation.

163. Article 9 of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television stipulates access of the public to major events, where each party to the Transfrontier Convention ‘shall examine the legal measures to avoid the right of the public to information being undermined due to the exercise by a broadcaster of exclusive rights for the transmission or retransmission ... of an event of high public interest’. This provision underlines the importance of the right to receive but does not entail a general access right for minorities to voice their differences or bring up new viewpoints and hence, their right to receive.

164. Article 7 of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television[111] is directed at the responsibilities of the broadcaster with regard to indecent and pornographic content, as well as to undue incitement to violence or racial hatred. Broadcasters shall ensure that news fairly presents facts and events and encourages the free formation of opinions.

165. The OSCE/ODIHR guidelines apply the content rule to all media to avoid stereotyping women or portraying national minorities’ political representatives and issues within stereotypes that may negatively affect their credibility and importance to voters.

166. The media is a powerful institution in society in shaping public opinion. Where the media practises inequality this has a silencing effect on large sections of society with contingent consequences for the political process. Negative portrayal such as stereotyping women affects the way men understand women and how women perceive themselves and the same goes for other minority groups. It discredits them in their own eyes as political beings. This type of media behaviour is hardly contested in a court of law – unless it elicits a response, which may be punishable and draws attention to what provoked it in the first place. De facto equality requires that media practices of this kind be eliminated but not necessarily by content regulation.[112] The prohibition of using certain speech based on sex, race, ethnicity or opinion is impossible, impractical and even undesirable. There are many wolves wrapped in the cloth of freedom of the press principles. One is that prohibiting pornography, racism, much debated – in particular in U.S.jurisprudence – may lead down the ‘slippery slope’ where once there is regulation of some speech there is no end to it. Given the danger of going down the regulatory road it is safer never to begin. This view accentuates that the answer to speech that may have harmful real-world effects is more speech rather than content regulation. In principle this argument is loaded with common sense. It must, however, be taken into account that economic and social disparities exclude the ‘defenceless’ from combating the effects of injurious speech by additional speech.

167. The demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society, exclude strict content regulation. Sanitising speech violates the principle of freedom of expression. Instead, as the Court has reiterated, it is borne out of the wording itself of Article 10 § 2 that whoever exercises the rights and freedoms enshrined in the first paragraph of that Article undertakes ‘duties and responsibilities’ and among them to take care in the presence of others. Journalists are to avoid offensive portrayals, which may hurt others without contributing to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs.[113] Elaborate and professional journalism is essential to the objectives of democracy and human dignity. The remedy is thus not to prohibit the exposure of certain views and opinions – but to make sure that when they are carried forward in the public sphere, independent of their substance, their conveyance is not discriminating. Such journalism entails not dishonouring the dignity of others on the basis of qualities that cannot be attributed to anyone in particular or altered by the ones that they characterise.

168. What is imperative, in the view of this report, is to establish professional standards in journalism. Authorizing the profession of journalism need not be viewed as contravening the principle that freedom of expression belongs to ‘everyone’ but as a measure to enhance freedom within the media, just as licensing of broadcasting is justified with democratic objectives. The author of this report has proposed elsewhere[114] that regulating the profession of journalism might provide a solution to the dilemma in the well-established democracies within the Member States of the Council of Europe. Such a measure might seem a nightmare in some of the newer Member States. Regulating the profession of journalism on the basis of competence in a non-discriminatory manner may be a necessary requirement to protect the press in adhering to its positive requirements.[115]

VIII. Advertising pressures

169. The OSCE/ODIHR guidelines emphasise that the debate concerning paid political advertising is still ongoing.[116]

170. The printed press is not required to behave differently in election periods. It is allowed to have its political preferences, but according to this document may not discriminate between political contenders in granting advertising space to all and without discriminating in prices. A broadcaster may not discriminate between political contenders and all candidates should have the possibility to purchase airtime. The greatest obstacle seems to go unnoticed here: the fact that some political candidates do not have the means to reach voters with paid advertisements and these are usually the ones whose voices may be of crucial significance for the democratic process as they do not have a firm niche in an often corrupt stagnated political system.

171. Regulation of advertising may be contested on the basis of excessive regulation of economic freedom or as an indirect infringement of freedom of expression.[117] The search for a fair balance between the economic interest of the press to survive on the market and the community’s interest in a press free from commercial restraints is of crucial concern if the press is to be able to play the vital role of the public watchdog. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe drew attention to the possible influence of advertisers and sponsors on the content of newspaper articles and broadcasts, already in 1978.[118] It provided that freedom of the press should not be governed by the rules of free enterprise alone.[119] It reiterated in 1981 that the independence of programme makers vis-à-vis the state and commercial interests may be more severely threatened at that point in time and that the exercise of freedom of expression may be further impeded. It recommended that the Committee of Ministers, in light of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, instruct the Steering Committee on the Mass Media to examine international means to protect freedom of expression by regulating commercial advertising, especially on radio and television, and to make concrete proposals, possibly through the conclusion of a European Convention.[120]

172. Throughout the 1980s the Council of Europe members, including those which are members of the EC, worked towards the enactment of a convention to establish certain minimum regulatory standards to guarantee the basic principles of the free flow of information and ideas as well as the essential principles of the democratic society. The principle objective of the Council of Europe with the European Convention on Transfrontier Television in 1989 was to achieve a framework for the transfrontier circulation of television programmes.[121]

173. Neither the European Convention on Transfrontier Television nor the EC Television Directive adopts the view that advertising in broadcasting should be wholly unregulated. Such restrictions are also part of domestic law, now influenced by the two European documents. It is clearly stated that the EC Television Directive must be compatible with Article 10 of the Convention, which has inspired the unwritten general principles of European Community law that the European Court of Justice submits are binding for the EC institutions.[122] At the same time it is no secret that the motor of the commercial sector, the advertising revenues crucial for the new channels, was probably the key factor leading to the adoption of the EC Television Directive. The persistence of different advertising rules among member states presented the main barrier to the establishment of the common market of broadcasting.[123] The EC Television Directive was first and foremost to the advantage of the advertising industry. The main objective was to achieve the harmonisation of laws necessary to create a unified broadcasting market and to create conditions necessary for the free movement of television broadcasts.

174. The European Court of Human Rights has come to the conclusion that the media need financial backing[124] and cannot operate without advertising revenues to pay their journalists.[125] There is no provision in the Convention or in any of its Protocols, equivalent to the articles in the German and Italian Constitutions guaranteeing a right to an economic enterprise, granting full discretion to the owner of the media or the advertiser, for that matter.[126] According to this principle, public authorities cannot ban advertisements on radio or television broadcasting.[127] Regulation of advertising would accordingly become unconstitutional if it endangered the survival of a private or public broadcasting company.[128] If this were the case with the Convention the problem of editorial advertising would not be solved, as the owners of the media would be able to assert their right to economic survival as having priority over any rights of the recipients to ‘uncontaminated’ news. It remains a fact, however, that the Convention’s approach towards political speech is firm and unchanging, and any restriction thereof demands the strictest scrutiny.[129] Commercial speech, a category which covers advertising, ranks lower, although it enjoys protection.

175. How would the Court assess the financial advantage of, for example, the pharmaceutical companies, which have been granted access as media sponsors by the amended European Convention on Transfrontier Television? They now have nearly unlimited space for self-promotion, although prohibited from meddling with news and current affairs. Their potential, however, to ‘taint’ the coverage of news reporting, not least in the controversial area of pharmaceutical production, should not be left to chance. The media is likely to be extremely cautious in tackling matters related to the interests of an important sponsor. It may lead journalists to slight issues if the coverage affects the business’ revenues. The tendency is to accentuate insignificant matters instead. The power of pulling out that advertisers and sponsors have constitutes a chilling effect on speech in the same manner as the threat of formal procedures. The Court has acknowledged this in a different context when it said that the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court.[130] With regard to the press, any delay of imparting the news may deprive it of its value and interest and subsequently deprive the public of its rightful entitlement of knowing what the main contending issues are.

176. That commercialism is a part of modern reality is not problematic per se. When it starts curtailing fundamental values, however, the threat of it gains momentum. And then it does not matter whether the perpetrator is the printed press or broadcasting as a third party violating the fundamental right of political speech crucial to democracy, in election periods. Such an infringement may involve state responsibility under the Convention.

IX. Conclusion

177. The OSCE/ODIHR guidelines are to provide guidance in murky waters where there is no uniform legal doctrine with regard to media responsibility. Media freedom is a different concept and refers basically to hands off policy of authorities and prohibits unjustified interference. Broadly, the press is at a stage where it can defend itself from prosecutions for criminal defamation when criticising authorities. The positive duties of the press, the requirement that the press acts as the public watchdog and must hence not only criticise authorities but also at times the hand that feeds it (corporate ownership) is a potential claim that has hardly entered the agenda as owners and employers are uncertain about their obligations. The positive duties of the media are not entrenched in legal codes like the boundaries which the media must not overstep. It is difficult demanding better media performance when it is not really clear what is being required and how it can be brought about. There must be a clear distinction between de lege lata and de lege ferenda.

178. The weakest part of the methodology of the OSCE/ODIHR media monitoring instrument, which is to highlight cases of undue interference in the editorial freedom of the media or attempts to undermine their independence, is that the guarantee of editorial independence from external forces is not accepted as having legal standing in their own methodological premises in the case of the print media.

179. It is recommended that the methods are based on clear legal concepts. If the monitoring is to highlight cases of interference in the editorial freedom of the media there must be a legal consensus on to what extent and how editorial independence within the media is protected. In most legal systems employee relations within the privately owned media fall under the sphere of private law and any monitoring of journalistic conduct from outside may be regarded as an intrusion into the function of editors.

180. The European Court of Human Rights is an authoritative source of interpretation of what constitutes freedom and responsibilities in journalism and there are clear signs in its case law that the editorial independence of the printed news media is not an autonomous zone as there are demands on the press as public watchdog of democratic accountability.

181. It should be recommended that the OSCE/ODIHR guidelines present in a clear manner the states’ negative obligations which require that states do not interfere with journalists during election periods or impede the media in acting as the public watchdog; and furthermore list the positive obligations which require that the states take steps with legislation or policies and direction of resources ensuring the responsible function of the media during election periods. It should also be listed what such steps should entail. The methodological framework would carry greater weight if the basis of the claim were made more serious and direct; otherwise the evaluation of media performance may not have the desired consequential effect of improving the situation.

182. To make media monitoring more effective there is a need to eliminate the chaos and uncertainty attached to the assumption that where the law is unclear self-regulation takes over. Evidently the OSCE/ODIHR media monitoring is not a treatment of retrospective legislation and it is hence recommended that the analytical framework of the media monitoring method is simplified due to the chaotic legal environment where many of the democratic standards do not have clear legal treaty basis. It has been suggested here to distinguish the different types of regulations clearly into three categories: legal regulation, market regulation and self-regulation. With such a distinction at the outset the reliability of the information produced by the media monitoring will increase and may gain instrumental value for regulatory bodies that are seriously concerned about the problem.

[1]Hereinafter Convention.

[2]D.J. Harris, M. O’Boyle, C. Warbrick: Law of the European Convention (1995) Butterworths, p. 550.

[3]Recommendation (99) 15 on Measures Concerning Media Coverage of Election Campaigns (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 September 1999 at the 678^th meeting of Ministers’ Deputies).

[4]Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Declaration 12 February 2004.

[5]Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, § 64.

[6]Dichand and Others v. Austria, application no. 29271/95, judgment of 26 February 2002, § 52.

[7]Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 31; Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, application no. 28525/95, judgment 26 February 2002, § 43.

[8]H. Thorgeirsdottir, Journalism Worthy of the Name. A Human Rights Perspective on Freedom within the Press, Lund University 2003.

[9]Recommendation No. R (2000) 10 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on codes of conducts for public officials (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers at its 106th session on 11 May 2000).

[10]Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], 20 May 1999, RJD 1999-III, p. 289, § 59.

[11]H. Thorgeirsdóttir, Journalism Worthy of the Name. A Human Rights Perspective on Freedom within the Press, Lund University 2003.

[12]Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 31.

[13]Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom,26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, § 59.

[14]OSCE Guidelines Draft as of 8 June 2004, p. 13. This problem is evoked on p. 13 of the report without further elaborating it in the context of the legal standards discussed in chapter 1 of the report.

[15]Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation (1641) 2004.

[16]Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation (1641) 2004.

[17]Parliamentary Assembly Doc. 9000, 19 March 2001, Freedom of Expression in the media in Europe; Report Committee on Culture, Science and Education. (Rapporteur: Mr. Gyula Hegyi).

[18]Not excluding newsprints.

[19]Cf. Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe,Doc. 9000, 19 March 2001, Freedom of Expression and information in the media in Europe,Report Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Rapporteur: Mr. Gyula Hegyi).

[20]OSCE Guidelines Draft as of 8 June 2004, p. 3.

[21]OSCE Guidelines Draft as of 8 June 2004, p. 26.

[22]Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, application no. 39293/98, judgment of 29 February 2000.

[23]Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, application no. 39293/98, judgment of 29 February 2000.

[24]OSCE Guidelines Draft as of 8 June 2004, p. 5.

[25]OSCE Guidelines Draft as of 8 June 2004, p. 8.

[26]OSCE Guidelines Draft as of 8 June 2004, p. 10.

[27]R. Pinto, La liberté d’information et d’opinion en droit international, 1984 Economica, p. 19.

[28]Cf. O’Brien, The Public’s Right to Know: The Supreme Court and the First Amendment, 1981 Prager, p. 17.

[29]Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, § 65.

[30]H. Thorgeirsdottir, Journalism Worthy of the Name. A Human Rights Perspective on Freedom within the Press, Lund University 2003.

[31]H. Thorgeirsdottir, Journalism Worthy of the Name. A Human Rights Perspective on Freedom within the Press, Lund University 2003, p. 454.

[32]OSCE Guidelines Draft as of 8 June 2004, p. 19.

[33]Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 31.

[34]Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria(no. 1), judgment of 24 November 1993, Series Ano. 276, p. 16, § 38.

[35]Purcell and Others v. Ireland, Commission's admissibility decision of 16 April 1991, application no. 15404/89, Decisions and Reports (DR) 70, p. 262.

[36]Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 31.

[37]VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, 28 June 2001, RJD 2001-VI, § 74.

[38]Oberschlick v. Austria, 1 July 1997, RJD 1997-IV, § 67; Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 31.

[39]Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom,25 March 1993, Series A no. 247.

[40]VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, 28 June 2001, RJD 2001-VI, § 78.

[41]Wingrove v. the United Kingdom,25 November 1996, RJD 1996-V, § 58; Sürek v. Turkey(No.1) [GC], no. 26682/95, RJD–I, § 61.

[42]Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria(no. 1), judgment of 24 November 1993, Series Ano. 276, p. 16, § 38.

[43]Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom,25 March 1993, Series A no. 247.

[44]Cf. OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines DRAFT as of 8 June 2004, p. 26.

[45]OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines DRAFT as of 8 June 2004, p. 26, p. 27.

[46]Statement adopted by the European Federation of Journalists (a branch of the International Federation of Journalists) at its annual meeting in Prague, 26 May 2003.

[47]OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines DRAFT as of 8 June 2004, p. 27.

[48]Goodwin v. the United Kingdom,27 March 1996, RJD 1996-II, p. 500, § 39; Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway,RJD 2000-IV, § 53.

[49]Cf.Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, RJD 2003-IV, judgment of 25 February 2003.

[50]Cf. H. Thorgeirsdóttir, Journalism Worthy of the Name. A Human Rights Perspective on Freedom within the Press, Lund University 2003.

[51]OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines DRAFT as of 8 June 2004, p. 27.

[52]OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines DRAFT as of 8 June 2004, p. 32.

[53]Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, RJD 1996-II, p. 500, § 39.

[54]Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, § 65.

[55]OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines DRAFT as of 8 June 2004, p. 30.

[56]Cf. Erdogdu and Ince v Turkey [GC], 8 July 1999, RJD 1999-I, § 54. See also Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1506 (2001) Freedom of expression in the media in Europe.

[57]OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines DRAFT as of 8 June 2004, pp. 27- 28.

[58]OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines DRAFT as of 8 June 2004, p. 26.

[59]Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], 20 May 1999, RJD 1999-III, p. 289.

[60]International Federation of Journalists’ principles on the conduct of journalists.

[61]Cf. OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines DRAFT as of 8 June 2004, p. 19.

[62]Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, application no. 39293/98, judgment of 29 February 2000 (not yet published).

[63]Öztürk v. Turkey [GC] no. 22479/93, judgment of 28 September 1999, RJD 1999-VI,§ 49.

[64]OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines DRAFT as of 8 June 2004, p. 31.

[65]Parliamentary Assembly report, Doc. 10195, 3 June 2004, Monopolisation of the electronic media and possible abuse of power in Italy, § 73.

[66]Cf. C. R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, 1995 Free Press paperback edition (first published 1993), p. 3.

[67]Cf. E. Barendt, “Access to the Media in Western Europe”in A. Sajó and M. Price (eds), Rights of Access to the Media, 1996 Kluwer Law International, p. 109.

[68]Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,Resolution 1003 (1993) on the ethics of journalism, Doc. 6854, § 10.

[69]Ibid., § 32.

[70]Ibid., § 11.

[71]OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines DRAFT as of 8 June 2004, p. 25.

[72]Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium,2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, § 47.

[73]Emphasis added.

[74]Hereinafter ICCPR..

[75]U.N GAOR 3d Comm., 16^th Session, 1097^th mtg. at 186, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR. 1097 (1961) (statement of Mr. Ferreira Aldunate, Uruguay).

[76]Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium,2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, § 52.

[77]Cf. S. Marks, ‘The European Convention and its “Democratic Society”’ in LXVI BYIL 1995.

[78]Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium,2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, § 52.

[79]Ibid. § 51.

[80]Application no. 11123/84, Etienne Tête v. France, Commission’s decision 9 December 1987, DR 54, p. 52.

[81]Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium,2 March 1987, Series A no. 113 § 54.

[82]Cf. Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1506 (2001) Freedom of expression in the media in Europe.

[83]Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium,2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, § 54.

[84]Ibid. § 50.

[85]Matthews v. the United Kingdom,18 February 1999, RJD 1999-1, § 39.

[86]Ibid., § 53.

[87]Erdogdu and Ince v Turkey[GC], 8 July 1999, RJD 1999-I, § 48, Lingens v. Austria,8 July 1986, Series A no.103, § 41, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], 21 January 1999, RJD 1999-I, § 45.

[88]Cf. N. Bobbio, The Future of Democracy, 1987 University of Minnesota Press, p. 3.

[89]European Commission for Democracy Through Law, Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, adopted by the Venice Commssion at its 52nd session, Venice 18-19 October 2002 (CDL-AD(2002)023rev), Opinion no. 190/2003, § 18-21.

[90]Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria(no. 1), judgment of 24 November 1993, Series Ano. 276, p. 16, § 38.

[91]Application no. 25060/94, Jörg Haider v. Austria, Commission’s decision, 18 October 1995, DR 83-A, p.66.

[92]Application no. 4515/70, X and Association Z v. the United Kingdom, Commission’s decision 12 July 1971, ECHR Yearbook 1971, p. 538; Application no. 25060/94, Jörg Haider v. Austria, Commission’s decision 18 October 1995, DR 83-A, p. 66., p. 73; Application no. 9297/81, X Association v. Sweden, Commission’s decision 1. March 1982, DR 28, p. 204.

[93]Erdogdu and Ince v Turkey[GC], 8 July 1999, RJD 1999-I, § 54.

[94]Application no. 24744/94, Huggett v. the United Kingdom, DR 82-A.

[95]Ibid. p. 101.

[96]Application no.15404/89, Betty Purcell and Others v. Ireland,Commission’s decision 16 April 1991, DR 70.

[97]Ibid.

[98]Ibid.

[99]Application no. 25060/94, Jörg Haider v. Austria,Commission’s decision 18 October 1995, DR 83-A, p. 66.

[100]D. Gomien, ‘Pluralism and Minority Access to the Media’ in Rosas and Helgesen (eds), The Strength of Diversity, Human Rights and Pluralist Democracy, 1992 Kluwer Law International, p. 50; J. Donnelly and R. E. Howard, ‘Assessing National Human Rights Performance: A Theoretical Framework’, 10 Human Rights Quarterly, 1988, p. 51.

[101]Handyside v. the United Kingdom,7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, § 49.

[102]Committee of Ministers, Declaration and Programme on Education for Democratic Citizenship, Based on the Rights and Responsibilities of Citizens (Adopted on 7 May 1999 at its 104th session).

[103]OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines Draft as of 8 June 2004, p. 41.

[104]OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines Draft as of 8 June 2004, p. 41.

[105]Cf. E. Barendt, Broadcasting Law: A Comparative Study, 1995 Oxford University Press, p. 157.

[106]P. J. Humphreys, Mass Media and Media Policy in Western Europe, 1996 Manchester University Press, p. 58 (Austria, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain).

[107]Law on Printing 1956 No. 57 10 April, chapter VI Duty of rectification of publisher/editor.

[108]P. J. Humphreys, Mass media and media policy in Western Europe, 1996 Manchester University Press, p. 58.

[109]MiamiHerald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo, 418 US 256, (1974).

[110]O. M. Fiss, ‘The Irony of Free Speech’, 1996 Harvard University Press, p. 63.

[111]Text amended according to the provisions of the Protocol (ETS No. 171) which entered into force on 1 March 2002.

[112]H. Thorgeirsdottir, Journalism Worthy of the Name. A Human Rights Perspective on Freedom within the Press, Lund University, 2003, pp. 237-38.

[113]Otto-Preminger Institut v. Austria,20 September 1994, Series A no. 295, § 49.

[114]H. Thorgeirsdottir, Journalism Worthy of the Name. A Human Rights Perspective on Freedom within the Press, Lund University 2003.

[115]H. Thorgeirsdottir, Journalism Worthy of the Name. A Human Rights Perspective on Freedom within the Press, Lund University 2003, p. 335.

[116]OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines DRAFT as of 18 December 2003, p. 35.

[117]E. Barendt, Broadcasting Law: A Comparative Study, 1995 Oxford University Press (first published 1993), p. 196.

[118]Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,Recommendation 834 on threats to freedom of the press and television, § 9.

[119]Ibid., § 12.

[120]Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,Recommendation 952 (1982) on international means to protect freedom of expression by regulating commercial advertising.

[121]European Treaty Series No. 132 in European Conventions and Agreements, Volume V, Strasbourg1990. Amended by the Protocol thereto adopted on 1 October 1998, E.T.S. No. 171.

[122]B. de Witte, ‘The European Content Requirement in the EC Television Directive – Five Years After’ in E. Barendt (ed.), The Yearbook of Media and Entertainment Law, 1995 Oxford University Press, pp. 101, 116–117.

[123]Humphreys, Mass media and media policy in Western Europe, 1996 Manchester University Press, p. 265.

[124]Barthold v. the Federal Republic of Germany, 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, concurring opinion of Judge Pettiti.

[125]Groppera AG and Others v. Switzerland,28 March 1990, Series A no. 173.

[126]The German case law recognises, in particular, the ‘right to an established and active commercial enterprise’ (Unfair Competition Act, Section 823), referred to in application no. 10572/83, Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beerman v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Commission’s report 18 December 1987, § 74.

[127]E. Barendt, Broadcasting Law: A Comparative Study, 1995 Oxford University Press (first published 1993), p. 196.

[128]Ibid. p. 194.

[129]Thoma v. Luxembourg,29 March 2001, RJD 2001-III, § 48.

[130]Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom,26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, § 60.