Time for an equal time rule?

Time for an equal time rule?

If one examines this issue, the origin of the problem is in the severe lack of access to the media time and space that all candidates face. Time for an equal time rule that mandates airtime to all contesting candidates?

Posted on The Hoot on Saturday, May 23 12:21:03, 2009

The great Indian election juggernaut moved, and as ever with the faceless Indian voter, delivered the least expected permutation under the circumstances. But the long election process threw up several disturbing issues for the media professional. One of them was already featured on this website, the issue of 'paid news'.  Following a complaint from the Hyderabad chapter of Network of Women in Media India,  the Andhra Pradesh Union of  Working Journalists, and the National Union of Journalists to the Chief Electoral Officer of Andhra Pradesh on the issue, the Press Academy of Andhra Pradesh held a seminar at which the Chairman, Press Council of India, was the chief guest. The well-attended seminar witnessed a heartening, open debate about the 'modus operandi' of the media houses, both print and electronic, in hawking their news space and time for a premium price. The large number of journalists and some politicians present there unequivocally corroborated the truth behind the 'allegations' while evidence to prove the culpability of the media houses was arguably more difficult to find. The seminar concluded on the optimistic note that the Press Council will hold an enquiry and that the debate on the issue must be widened to include media bosses nationwide who are at the epicentre of this ethical mess. But the argument this piece tries to explore is if there are ways in which this kind of situation can be handled by better regulation, given the extraordinary credibility with which the Election Commission handled most issues in these elections. If one examines this issue, the origin of the problem is in the severe lack of access to the media time and space that all candidates face. In a modern democracy, media are the primary vehicle for reaching the electorate. Denied this, the electorate may not even know that some candidates are in the fray. This is a serious limitation on the candidate's Right to Communicate with the voter in a democracy. The media invoke their democratic right to free speech whenever the state attempts to regulate them. As a quid pro quo, the democratic state must assert its right to call up on the media to give low-cost airtime and space to all contesting candidates during elections to facilitate the democratic process. Impose an equal time rule that mandates airtime at time slots with good viewership and prime space in newspapers. Such equal time legislation exists in US, European countries and even Hong Kong where the media are mandated to provide reasonably priced space/time to allow the candidates to put forth their views to the electorate. In United States, under section 315 of the Communication Act 1934 (which went through several modifications over time) regularly scheduled newscasts, news interviews shows, documentaries (assuming the candidate wasn't the primary focus of the documentary), or on-the-spot news events are exempt from the equal time rule. The rule applies to other programming where positive coverage provided to a candidate must be balanced by similar coverage to the other candidates for similar duration at a similar time slot. In countries like France, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, the equal time rule is applied with various criteria for determining equality. Our public broadcasters, AIR and Doordarshan, also follow this to this day. The Election Commission assigns time slots and duration based on the national/ regional status of the political party. It issues coupons to the political parties for two rounds of transmission in an electoral cycle, which they can use after duly adhering to both the broadcast code and the election code. Most parties do use the opportunity, as a large chunk of electorate does still constitute the listenership/viewership of the state broadcasters. This has an important advantage in democratic politics. Since the Election Commission has put restrictions on campaign spending, it gives the candidates a chance to take their message to the people in a fair media environment. The more important issue is, many candidates, especially the independent new entrants to politics, may not have the finances to launch a media blitz, the way major parties do. By providing prime time transmission slots of short duration, it can be ensured that the electorate get to see and hear all the candidates and their manifestos. In print media too, most papers bring out district supplements and election specials during elections. As a part of the effort, the papers should be mandated to provide a quarter page of the broadsheet or half page of the tabloid every day after the notification of elections to the day of polling to the candidates in the fray in the local area to use the space to project their candidature the way they choose to. This could effectively prevent the practice by newspapers of selling news space during elections and actively blacking out or providing negative coverage to those unable/unwilling to pay. If the Election Commission imposes this as a democratic necessity to provide fair access of all candidates to the voter through media, it will nullify the need of candidates to buy access to media. The equal time principle is a healthy, tried and tested formula for fair access to media in a democracy. While Prasar Bharati is still practicing it, it is time the principle is extended to commercial media, both print and electronic. This leaves political advertising alone, which the parties can still use depending on their resources, while ensuring that all the candidates have a fair chance of presenting their case before the electorate. Such an equal time/space rule, if administered under the supervision of the Election Commission, will ensure that the candidates' Right to Communicate with the electorate is protected while ensuring that the electorate gets to know ALL the candidates who are seeking their vote, and not just those with social connections and economic clout.