The completion of the second stage in the post-June 30 roadmap, the presidential elections, draws closer. Only two candidates are running and, as always, the media is playing a role. It is the chief instrument for covering news and events related to the electoral contest. It is a major channel for campaign propaganda. It monitors public opinion trends through opinion polls and surveys that media outlets conduct or that are produced by specialised polling centres and then published in the press. Any discussion of neutrality — or otherwise — in campaign coverage must distinguish between three news sources: the state run media, private media and political party media. All these sources consist of conventional outlets — newspapers, television and radio — and a variety of new media, including Internet radio and television channels and social networking websites. Assessing the neutrality of the state-run media requires a consideration of the extent to which it complies with the rules and regulations promulgated to ensure fair, equal and impartial treatment of the candidates. Public radio and television stations have largely adhered to these rules in their coverage of the 2014 presidential campaigns in news bulletins, broadcasts, current affairs and talk-show programmes and in the news tickers on the screens of the major TV channels. The national, publicly-owned press has evinced progress in the degree of professionalism with which it is covering the presidential elections this year. National newspapers have been balanced, impartial and fair in their news coverage of the two campaigns in terms of column lengths, digital space, headlines, layout and photography. Unlike the last elections these newspapers have not directly declared their support of any candidates. Bias can be noted in the opinion columns of some newspapers and magazines, but these columns express the views of their writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or management. And though there have been cases of editorialising news coverage these have been limited. Political party mouthpieces, whether print or electronic, are conditioned by the positions of the respective parties. Some have come out in favour of one candidate while other parties have proclaimed themselves neutral, leaving members to vote according to their conscience. Political party news organs are not legally obliged to maintain neutrality; their purpose, after all, is to voice the party line. And it should be noted the influence of the political party press in shaping public opinion in Egypt is limited compared to government and privately owned media. The problem of bias has been most pronounced in the privately owned press and television channels. While the private media is free to express views in support of this or that candidate it is a right that comes with conditions fixed by the Higher Electoral Commission. Religious slogans cannot be used to support a candidate. They cannot use discriminatory language. They cannot slander rival candidates or breach their rights to privacy. They cannot use inflammatory language, incite strife or otherwise threaten national unity. These conditions apply to campaign ads and other publicity media outlets publish in favour of a particular candidate. But with respect to news reportage, current affairs programmes, political talk shows, news bulletins and tickers, TV channels are expected to demonstrate balance and fairness. Observers have noted a number of blatant lapses as television shows and newspapers betray distinct bias for one candidate over the other. The most obvious cases involve television talk show hosts whose flagrant support for one candidate betrays the whole gamut of journalistic ethics. Slightly less obvious are the evening political affairs programmes with guests comprised entirely of supporters of one candidate or, at best, a rare appearance of supporters of the rival candidate. More disturbing are cases in which the talk show host makes offensive remarks or circulates false information and groundless rumours against one of the candidates, a violation of the laws and regulations governing campaign coverage and an undermining of anything that might approach professional ethics. There have been other breaches of professionalism in the printed and electronic media. The conduct and publication of opinion polls regularly fails to meet the minimum objective criteria for such surveys. Yet the media is happy to follow-up dubious surveys or polls conducted via the Internet. Tellingly, the results of polls featured in many newspapers dovetail with the political outlook of the media outlet doing the publishing. One privately owned newspaper and another privately owned television station conducted essentially the same survey yet the results they publicised could not have been further apart. The flagrant discrepancies exposed a lack of professionalism and overriding bias on the part of the media outlets concerned. Some privately owned newspapers and television stations have flaunted the rules set by the Higher Electoral Commission on the publication of the results of opinion polls. The media are required to state the name of the agency that conducted the survey, the agency that financed it, provide information on how opinion was sampled, the conduct and date of the survey and explicitly state the margin of error. Newspapers and television stations have regularly failed to do this. Some newspapers and television stations have betrayed their biases by manipulating the results of opinion polls. Instead of publishing the results of the survey in full they home in only on those points that back their chosen candidate. Other newspapers have conducted their own polls the methodology of which is at best arbitrary. Political bias at the expense of professional ethics underscores the need for a charter to which all media be committed. It also highlights the importance of professional training of young journalists with a sharper focus on objectivity and impartiality, and the necessity of providing the Media Performance Monitoring and Assessment Committee with the tools necessary to improve media coverage during electioin seasons. The writer is the general manager of Elite Centre for Media & Public Opinion.
