(FLIP/IFEX) – The following is a 30 November 2005 FLIP press release: Journalists disturbed by legal conditions imposed on presidential campaign coverage The national journalism community finds itself in a confused and tense atmosphere, now that the Constitutional Court has approved the electoral guarantees law (Ley de Garantías) legalizing and regulating consecutive presidential re-election in […]
(FLIP/IFEX) – The following is a 30 November 2005 FLIP press release:
Journalists disturbed by legal conditions imposed on presidential campaign coverage
The national journalism community finds itself in a confused and tense atmosphere, now that the Constitutional Court has approved the electoral guarantees law (Ley de Garantías) legalizing and regulating consecutive presidential re-election in Colombia. Journalists from the main media outlets have expressed their concern about potential restrictions on press freedom.
The most polemical aspect of this law is Article 25, which stipulates that private radio and television broadcasters and operators must provide “a weekly report to the National Electoral Council regarding the time or space that their broadcasts grant to each presidential candidate’s campaign.” The same article obliges the National Electoral Council (NEC) to publish this information and verify that the candidate’s presence in such broadcasts or publications is ‘equitable’.”
The media outlets have four principal reservations:
1. There is no definition of “equitable” coverage. The norm neither defines nor establishes criteria regarding informational equity. It limits itself to saying only that pluralism and accuracy in the handling of information are sought. The subjective application of this article can result in censorship.
2. It is not clear how the media outlets are supposed to present the weekly reports to the NEC. There are doubts about the manner in which the measurements of the coverage are to be presented, and also concerns that the NEC will become a content review body.
3. The penalties for inequitable coverage by the media outlets are not clear. According to the electoral guarantees law, if the NEC finds that there has not been equitable coverage, it shall “take the measures required within the following 72 hours”. The concrete measures are not stipulated, but it is possible that under such a wide definition, or via general norms, disproportional fines or penalties could be imposed on media outlets.
4. Although this article has been binding upon the media outlets since 25 November 2005, it is not clear how to carry out the coverage of the different candidacies, given that the campaigns will officially begin in two months. Concretely, there is a doubt as to whether the balance to be strived for, be it measured by the quality of the information or the number of millimetres of coverage, includes the coverage of the presidential pre-candidates [individuals who are currently campaigning to become an official candidate]. If that is the case, the journalistic agendas would be completely controlled and pre-determined, that is to say, they would spend all their time interviewing all of the different candidates.
The Constitutional Court’s ruling:
In its 25 November ruling, the court declared Article 25 constitutional. Its only qualification was that both the amount and the quality of the daily radio and television coverage of the President and Vice-President’s activities must be taken into account, once they express their intention to be candidates.
In the explanation of its ruling, the court stipulated that the NEC must ensure that an information balance is produced, “not exclusively in quantitative terms, but also in qualitative terms, that is to say, in terms of the content of the information shown.” It also said that any possible informational imbalances must be agreed upon by the media outlets.
In a Caracol Radio interview, Constitutional Court president Manuel José Cepeda commented on some of the questions posed by the media outlets. He gave assurances that the NEC will not be able to impose content. Its duty will be to publish the information sent by the media outlets. Regarding the concern expressed by the media outlets about whether the obligation to provide equitable amounts of coverage applies to the pre-candidacy campaigns, Judge Cepeda said that informational balance would have to be produced “with respect to political currents and their positions.” However, he clarified that that was his personal opinion of it, which was not included in the ruling.
The National Electoral Council’s position:
Council President Guillermo Mejía agreed with Judge Cepeda’s statement to the effect that it is the media outlet that will assess its informational balance. He gave assurances that the first balance is determined by the media outlet, and that only after that shall the NEC decide if in fact there is a balance or not.
FLIP shares the concerns expressed by the media outlets. The application of Article 24 must not become an instrument to control the content of media outlets’ information (in this case television and radio), nor can it justify application of disproportional and inhibiting penalties. As stipulated in Colombia’ constitution and jurisprudence, as well as international treaties, censorship is a violation of the right to information and opinion, and therefore a human rights violation.
In addition, FLIP underscores the Constitutional Court’s president’s statements that these controls must in no way become restrictions on press freedom, and that self-regulation by the media outlets will be paramount in the implementation of the criteria regarding balance.
Finally, it exhorts the NEC to define the criteria regarding informational equity, and the penalties for failure to provide it, and to make them public, so that there are pre-established rules of the game for covering the electoral campaign. Any penalty on a media outlet for an excessive use of press freedom must be proportional and concrete.
FLIP emphasizes the importance of media outlets’ work in the national and regional electoral processes, in order to consolidate democratic processes and allow informed decisions.
