ELECTORAL PROCESS

The access of candidates and parties to media and means of communication is fair in principle, but practical considerations that relate to limitations in terms of time and channel space restrict somewhat the access of smaller parties and their candidates to television debates and appearances. Given the increased impact of such appearances on electoral outcome, this bias in terms of access is somewhat problematic from the point of view of fairness and justice. However, the restrictions are in terms of size and importance only and are not about ideology or the government-opposition divide. Access to newspapers and commercial forms of communication is unrestricted, but is in practice dependent on the economic resources for campaign management of parties and individual candidates. Candidates are, however, required to report their sources of income used for campaigning.

The legal framework for electoral campaigns is based on the freedom of assembly, which is codified in Article 8 of the Basic Law and ensures the “right to assemble peacefully and unarmed without prior notification or permission” but “(i)n the case of outdoor assemblies, this right may be restricted by or pursuant to a law.”
Whereas assemblies are regulated in detail, campaigning is largely unregulated by federal legislation. As mentioned above, the Political Parties Act (PPA) sets general criteria for the treatment of political parties. Of particular importance in the conduct of elections is Article 5, which requires that “where a public authority provides facilities or other public services for use by one party, equal treatment must be accorded to all parties.” During the period of an electoral campaigns, this general criterion applies to all parties that have submitted election proposals. The amount of services parties are able to use depends on their relative importance measured by the results obtained in the last general election. This is called the “principle of gradual equality” and constitutes the basis of parties’ access to media in conjunction with the Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting and Telemedia. In Article 25 of this latter treaty, the plurality of opinion is ensured: “The editorial content of commercial broadcasting must express plurality of opinion. The important political, ideological and social forces and groups shall be given appropriate opportunity to express themselves (…and) minority views shall be taken into account….”
This general guideline is further explored in the context of general elections: Article 42/2 states that “(p)olitical parties participating in elections for the federal parliament shall (…) be granted an appropriate amount of broadcasting time if an election list of this party has been admitted in at least one (federal) state.” This also counts for “…any party or other political association participating in the elections of representatives from the Federal Republic of Germany for the European Parliament (…) if at least one electoral proposal has been approved.” The principle of gradual equality is also applied to television airtime, but the time granted to large parliamentary parties is not allowed to exceed twice the amount conceded to smaller parliamentary parties, which in turn receive no more than double the amount of airtime given to parties currently unrepresented in the federal or state parliaments. While campaign spots on the public media networks is provided free of charge, the private media can not impose airtime prices more than 35% of that demanded for commercial advertising (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Landesmedienanstalten 2005: 11). Non-parliamentary parties in particular rely on this broadcast advertising as an essential tool of campaigning. In addition, private media traditionally match the airtime allocation schemes of the main public broadcasters ARD and ZDF, thus giving airtime to non-parliamentary parties as well.
During the general election of 2009, parliamentary parties in general were satisfied with their access to public broadcast media. Criticism – especially from the Free Democratic Party (FDP), the Greens and the Left Party– arose when ARD and ZDF decided to cancel a debate among the party leaders of the five biggest parties due to reluctance by the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) to take part. Furthermore, according to OSCE’s election report, “(s)ome of the non-parliamentary parties expressed dissatisfaction with the media’s tendency to focus coverage on the six largest parties, and stated that they were rarely invited to participate in political discussion programs or to give interviews.” Although that is true, in our view the principle of gradual equality seems to be an elaborate attempt to preserve a fair share of media coverage for small as well as for larger parties.

Candidates and parties may purchase political advertising in the print media. The only restriction to the equal access by candidates and parties to these media outlets concerns the availability of resources. In contrast, political advertising on television or other broadcast mediums is unlawful. In that regard, all candidates and parties are equal in access, in the sense that none has a chance to buy political advertising on broadcast media.
Media organizations give a fair and balanced opportunity to political actors to present their views and programs, insofar as this is not simple advertisement. Right-wing politicians sometimes complain that journalists give center-left politicians better access. But there is little hard evidence that such a bias exists to any substantial extent.

Legal frameworks exist to ensure that candidates have equal access to the mass media, and the media organizations themselves try to ensure that approximate equal coverage is accorded to candidates by basing this coverage on the party vote at the previous election.
An ongoing subject of debate is the ability of parties in government to engage in de facto election campaigns throughout their tenure in government by means of government-funded advertising under the guise of information provision. There have been some moves made recently at both the federal and state levels to legislatively or otherwise curtail such advertising, but concerns over inappropriate government advertising persist.
One (relatively small) specific matter in relation to the issue of government advertising emerged during the period of the evaluation. Federal government signage installed outside of schools in 2009 to advertise government funding of school building projects were found by the AEC to be in breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. They were deemed to constitute election advertising, since they appeared outside schools which also act as polling stations during state and federal elections. However, the federal government has since taken steps to comply with the Act.

Canada scores highly in terms of the extent to which candidates and parties have fair access to the media. While national media outlets certainly express political views and manifest political orientations, in general there is fair and balanced coverage of election campaigns and parties. Access to the media is not restricted on any grounds. One key issue is the access given political parties in the televised leaders’ debate in federal elections. Historically, only the leaders of parties with seats in the House of Commons have been invited to participate in the debate. Leaders of political parties without seats have been excluded. Not surprisingly, this has been a source of contention for those parties. In the October 2008 federal election, the convention was changed so that the leader of the Green Party, which had no seats but did have significant popular support, could participate in the debate. That measure was aimed at increasing fair access to the media on the part of small political parties.

Denmark is a liberal democracy. According to the constitution, section 77, freedom of speech is protected: “Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.” Freedom of speech includes freedom of the press. According to the Press Freedom Index published in 2009 by Reporters without Borders, Denmark ranked highest in the world in press freedom, together with Finland, Ireland, Norway and Sweden.
The penal code sets three limits to freedom of speech: libel, blasphemy and racism. How far those limits reach is interpreted by independent courts.
The public media (Denmark’s Radio and TV2) have to fulfill in programming the criteria of diversity and fairness. All political parties that plan to take part in elections, whether old or new, large or small have the right to equal programming time on the radio and on television. Private media, mostly newspapers, tend also to be open to all parties and candidates. Newspapers are for instance open to accepting and publishing letters to the editor.
All parties and candidates have equal possibilities of distributing pamphlets and posters. Finances can be a limiting factor, however, with the larger parties having more money for campaigns than smaller parties.

During the official electoral campaign – which starts approximately 30 days before the date of the presidential election and 20 days before the parliamentary election – the public media (radio and TV) are obliged to report on political parties and candidates in a fair and impartial way. Financial expenditures during electoral campaigns are regulated to provide all candidates with equal opportunity in campaigning; rules on the fairness of electoral campaigns are determined by independent bodies (Commission nationale du controle; Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel). This provides a reasonable framework, which is constantly being improved; for instance, the judiciary has recently decided that the time used by the president in the public media should be accounted as time allocated to the majority, which had not been the case up to now.

Formally, all parties or candidates have equal access to the media. No restrictions based on race, gender, color, language or any other such factors exist. However, the largest media organizations have some tendency to favor the bigger parties or more well-known candidates in their coverage. Therefore, parties already in parliament or serving in local councils are better positioned than new parties or new candidates running for parliamentary or local council seats.

Irish elections attract widespread and detailed coverage in the press, on radio and on TV. There are strict rules regarding media coverage, especially on radio and TV, designed to ensure equity of treatment between the political parties. The state-owned broadcasting company (RTE) allows equal access to all parties that have more than a minimum number of representatives in the outgoing parliament. Smaller political parties and independent candidates receive less favorable treatment in terms of access to the media, but this is perhaps inevitable, as it would be impossible to provide all the small parties and independent (non-party) candidates equal coverage with the major parties in the national media. However, any imbalances that may exist at the national level tend to be offset at the local level through coverage by local radio stations and newspapers.
An important feature of Irish elections at all levels is the saturation use of posters to elicit support for candidates. Subject to normal public safety and anti-litter regulations, all parties and candidates are free to erect posters on public spaces.

Access to the media for electioneering purposes is regulated by the Public Offices Election Law, and basically ensures a well-defined rule set for all candidates. In recent years, it has been criticized as being overly restrictive, for instance by preventing wider use of the Internet and other advanced electronic data services. The restrictions, many of them dating to the pre-war era, were installed by a rather paternalistic leadership and include provisions such as severe limitations on door-to-door canvassing and on distributing election-related documents. With respect to advanced media in particular, a candidate is not allowed to update his or her website or to upload topical material, such as video of a campaign speech, to YouTube.

Media law (Article 39g) requires that political parties with one or more seats in either chamber of the States General, the Dutch bicameral parliament, be allotted time on the national broadcasting station throughout the course of the parliamentary term, provided they participate in elections throughout the country. The Commission for the Media also ensures that political parties are given equal media access that is free from government influence or interference (Article 11.3). The commission is also responsible for allotting national broadcasting time to political parties participating in upcoming European elections. This broadcasting time is only denied to parties that have been fined for breeches of Dutch anti-discrimination legislation. The individual
media outlets themselves, however, are entitled to decide exactly how much attention they pay to political parties and their candidates. Since 2004, state subsidies for participating in elections have only been granted to parties already represented in parliament. Whether this practice constitutes a form of unequal treatment for newcomers is currently a matter of discussion in the Netherlands.

Allocation of election broadcasting time and funds is fair. It is monitored by the independent Electoral Commission. The procedures are laid down in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Broadcasting Act 1998. This ensures fair coverage of different political positions. Some earlier deficiencies that had to do with regulations that had not been adapted to the new reality of a mixed-member proportional electoral system have been addressed in the Electoral Finance Act 2007. However, this led to new problems. In the end, the Electoral Finance Act was repealed in 2009 and a revised bill is currently being discussed. Nevertheless, the major problems resulting from the transfer from an essentially two-party to a multiparty system have been dealt with satisfactorily.

Candidates and parties are free to purchase political advertising in print publications and on the Internet. Advertisements from political parties are not allowed on television or radio. This ban has been subject to some controversy, with the populist Progress Party advocating a removal of this ban. The other political parties are opposed to changing the law.
Television and radio broadcasters organize many electoral debates, to which all major parties (those with a vote share larger than 3% in the previous election) have fair access. However, representatives of the larger parties are interviewed more often and participate in more debates. Political advertising during election campaigns is extensively regulated to ensure that voters are aware of its source. During elections, both private and public broadcasters organize public debates. There is no direct government interference in choosing the team of journalists to conduct debates.

All candidates and parties have equal opportunities of access to the national media and other means of communication. However, specific parties are more extensively covered by media outlets that share the respective political attitudes. During the period of review, a right-wing party (Sverigedemokraterna, SD), founded in 1988, gained ground in the national electoral process. The biggest newspapers refused to publish advertisements of this party. However, currently the SD has accessed national media, albeit the evaluation of the party in most national news-papers is critical.

It is noteworthy that in Sweden, as in many other European countries, the usage of new media and new forms of information is increasing. In this respect, the national electoral process is observed in “old media” such as newspapers and TV but increasingly also in the internet with specific forms of advertisement, information and political campaigning.

Social media have been deemed increasingly important for private campaigns. It is not clear what role those media will play in election campaigns after the individual candidate preference indication system has been abolished.

Electoral law guarantees parties access to state radio and television with 14 hours set aside for all parties to express their views, with equal allocation to all irrespective of their size or previous voting performance. Thus all parties do have access, although the resulting presentation is often tedious and unlikely to hold viewers’ and listeners’ attention. Space is also provided by municipalities for billboards, and political advertisements are carried in newspapers. There is an obvious bias toward more coverage and presentation for larger parties, reflecting their greater resources and also the perception of the media that they are more important. However, television and radio debates often include all parties that already have or are likely to gain parliamentary representation, for which 5% of the vote is required. Smaller parties receive much less coverage, unless they can attract attention through the presence of established politicians or media personalities.

Parties have access to broadcast time on television and radio for political purposes during election campaign periods. This time is divided equally among the parties, according to the number of candidates they field. Parties need to present lists in at least 25% of electoral districts, and field a total of candidates equal to at least one-quarter of the total number of possible candidates, in order to qualify for these broadcasts. However, despite airing in prime time, these short broadcasts (lasting a maximum of three minutes for each party) do not attract much of an audience. Thus, in September 2009, none of the political broadcast segments for the legislative elections of that month were in the top 20 most-watched television programs of that month.
In practice, the party political broadcasts serve as the only certain media platform for smaller parties (of which there were 11 in the 2009 legislative election). Party access to media news programs and political debates is overwhelmingly concentrated on the five parties that have parliamentary representation (the Socialist Party (PS), the Social Democratic Party (PSD), the Democratic and Social Center/Popular Party (CDS-PP), the Left Bloc (BE) and the Unitarian Democratic Coalition (CDU)). Thus, before the 2009 legislative elections, a total of 10 debates took place between the leaders of these main parties, with each debate featuring two leaders. The leaders of the remaining 11 smaller parties had only one televised debate, in which all participated. As such, the coverage in televised debates was some 10 times greater for the main parties than for their smaller counterparts. These debates drew considerable attention in the 2009 legislative elections, with four featuring in the top 20 most-watched television programs of September 2009. Television news coverage – which is also popular in terms of TV ratings, and is the predominant source of information for the Portuguese – is also heavily concentrated on the five main parties.

There is a significant difference between the privately owned electronic (and print) media and the state-owned public broadcaster, ORF, which is committed by law to independent, impartial and extensive information. During campaigns, the ORF treats political parties as equal as possible - under the condition that the parties are already represented in parliament. This can be seen as unfair with respect to new and very small parties but it provides a rule which arguably is within the general understanding of fairness.
Other media outlets are free to express indirectly or directly a bias in favor of specific candidates and parties. There is no generally accepted “watchdog” organization tasked with observing the media and the degree of fairness they show during campaigns. The absence of a watchdog mechanism, combined with the high degree of media concentration in Austria, diminishes the extent to which media access remains fair.

The so-called democratic parties have broadly equal access to the media even though there is no legal rule that requires parties be given equal television exposure. All the main parties (that is, those represented in parliament) receive broadcast time slots (television mostly, and some radio) throughout the year for their own broadcasts. Parties receive additional time slots during the campaign season.
In contrast, minor parties and so-called non-democratic parties do not have access to all media. The main television channels, for instance, have the right to ban such parties from their broadcasts. There is a difference of policy in this respect between the Dutch- and French-speaking parts of the country. In Flanders, as the extreme right-wing party Vlaams Belang has become increasingly institutionalized, it has also enjoyed access to public media.
Print media offers broad coverage of the different views of political parties including smaller or less mainstream parties, but with less details on the particular parties. In the run-up to the 2010 election campaign, smaller as well as new political parties managed, after protest and threat of legal action, to secure broadcasting time on public television. (The format was a television debate between representatives of smaller parties against representatives of the four main parties.)
In general, there is no systematic partisan bias in mass media (television, radio, newspaper and the Internet), though some newspapers may in their coverage lean toward certain party groups.

Media access has been a controversial subject in Mexico and the most recent law (approved in 2008) is drastic in its approach. Parties are now forbidden to advertise in the media directly. They are allocated media space by IFE, which is responsible for deciding which media slots each party is allowed (this is done according to a formula). The IFE also arranges presidential debates at election time. By the same token, there are limits on the ability of interest groups such as business organizations to advertise in a political way during election campaigns, and restrictions on government advertising during an election period. Again, IFE is the enforcing body. The central point is that the IFE, which is a professionally staffed state agency overseeing the electoral process, has far more power and responsibility than is the case in most countries. This is the result of a reaction against an earlier period of Mexican history, when the ruling party could more or less determine the outcome of elections at will. Loopholes in the law have gradually been tightened. However, these restrictions do not necessarily apply to the Internet or the blogosphere, which are beyond the control of the IFE and have become an important source of information in the urban areas of the country.

The pluralist media system in Poland ensures that all parties and candidates have access to the media. Even after the 2007 change in government, however, the public media have tended to favor the conservative PiS. This especially applies to TVP1, the main public television program, which has a broad audience. New and small parties also suffer from the fact that the Polish media pays a disproportionately large amount of attention to the big political actors.

The existing media pluralism in Slovakia ensures that all candidates and parties have access to the media. However, the public media made some concessions to the Fico government. They downplayed the importance of major government scandals and granted Prime Minister Fico much airtime. Departing from the traditional practice, they also allowed the prime minister to take part in political programs without facing a counterpart from the parliamentary opposition.

The electoral law (Organic Law 5/1985) recognizes and regulates (articles 59 to 67) the access of candidates and parties to public television and public radio networks during electoral campaigns. This access is not exactly equal, but is plural and proportional (based on past electoral performance), and is strictly regulated through an allocation in minutes of free advertisement slots (paid advertising is not allowed) and news coverage. Thus, parties fielding candidates in at least 75% of the districts receive a free slot of 10, 15, 30 or 45 minutes every day, depending on their share of the vote in the previous elections. A similar system operates with regard to news coverage, where the time devoted to each party is also proportionally allocated according to the previous electoral results. Therefore, while new candidates or parties may find it difficult to win media access, the two major parties (PSOE and PP) enjoy some advantage, since they are the only ones that regularly draw more than 20% of the vote (i.e., the threshold established in law to obtain the maximum allocation of time). Whether fair or not, the allocation of these advertising slots and minutes of news coverage is guaranteed by strict Central Electoral Board (Junta Electoral Central) oversight. In fact, many journalists working in the public media are very critical of this rigid system, which subordinates the journalistic interest of the information to the firm allocation of time in order to guarantee proportional access according to the law.
Despite the existence of a similar regulation regarding private television networks (Organic Law 2/1988), access of the candidates to private television stations, radio networks and newspapers is not guaranteed. On the one hand, electoral ads are not free in these media, and on the other, access by candidates is much more unbalanced depending on the political ideology of the few communication giants that openly promote their favorite candidates. It could be said that, while the major private media companies exhibit a partisan political bias, the media system as a whole provides fair, or at least plural, coverage of different political positions, as in every other Western European country. Notwithstanding this fact, during the 2008 – 2010 period, the creation of several new small channels following the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DTTV) has exacerbated the politicization of the private television sector at the national, regional and local level. As a reaction to this development, the Spanish parliament began in spring 2010 to discuss an electoral law reform that would extend to the private media the system of proportional news coverage, under the oversight of the Central Electoral Board, which is currently applied in the public media.

In a formal sense, media access is fair. When it comes to posting election ads, however, access is a function of money, as the overwhelmingly private electronic media charge for election commercials, and competitive races require heavy expenditures. The major parties have never had difficulty in raising generous amounts of money for media advertising, although one party (most often the Republicans) sometimes has a sizable advantage. At the level of individual candidates, incumbents often have a very large fund-raising advantage over their challengers. But otherwise strong challengers can usually raise enough money to compete effectively. Some candidates for the Senate have been able to spend $10-$50 million from their personal fortunes, giving them very large advertising advantages. Increasingly, Internet-based information media play a role. In the most recent election cycle since the 2008 national elections, candidates have linked themselves to voters and supporters through social media networks.

Large sectors of the media in Hungary have a strong partisan bias. However, the existing media pluralism gives all candidates and parties the chance to present their views to the public. The media have paid relatively little attention to the 2010 elections, the outcome of which seemed to be clear in advance. The non-partisan private TV and radio stations in particular tried to stay outside the party battle in order not provoke any conflicts with the incoming Fidesz government. For the first time since 1990, no debates between the main party leaders were broadcasted. Fidesz leader Viktor Orbán refused to debate in public with his political opponents.

Candidates’ ease of access to the media depends on the type of media. The print media in Korea remains dominated by three big conservative newspapers with a clear political bias. However, smaller newspapers that support the opposition do exist. Access to TV and radio is more equal. Online citizens’ media has played an important role in Korean politics and in the nation’s broader Internet culture in recent years. The immensely controversial NSL also applies to online media. Nevertheless, the country’s role as one of the world’s most Internet-active societies, with almost universal access to the Internet and an increasing shift from the use of print media to online media (especially among the younger generations), the obvious conservative bias of mainstream newspapers is less and less relevant as a factor in assessing fair media access during election campaigns.

However, one particular shortcoming of free media access is the determination by the election watchdog to restrict political discussion of “hot issues” before elections. The NEC has justified this policy as a necessary means to “ensure a fair election.” For example, in April 2010, the NEC banned political parties and social organizations from discussing “hot issues” or making campaign pledges about them ahead of the local elections. Hot issues, as the NEC defined this category, went so far as to include (for example) the controversy over providing free school meals for all public school students. In addition, in 2010 the election watchdog restricted the use of the Twitter microblogging network for campaign purposes in the days before local voting took place.

Paid television advertising for elections is not allowed in the United Kingdom, but no such restriction exists for the printed press. A certain amount of free television advertising time is allocated to major parties; the amount of time and space depends on the number of candidates that are being put forward as well as past electoral support.
The internal rules of television news broadcasters require programs to maintain a rough balance between parties, and television news coverage must consequently be judged as fairly balanced. Despite periodic grumbling by the parties about bias in coverage, most commentators would accept that balance in the broadcast media is achieved. No such balancing requirement exists for the printed press, which consequently (though in varying degrees) is quite partisan in its outlook. It goes without saying that the major parties find it much easier to attract media attention than do smaller parties or independent candidates. In general, media coverage of political issues is extensive and rich, even if (especially in the popular press), a national obsession with “celebrity” often dominates the headlines.
Political parties are not given free print advertising space, but each candidate is awarded free postage for a mail advertisement in their own electoral district.

The access of candidates and parties to public TV channels is regulated by law (Ley No. 18,700 Orgánica Constitucional sobre Votaciones Populares y Escrutinios and Ley No. 18,603 Orgánica Constitucional de los Partidos Políticos). But given the high level of media concentration within a small group of companies with a specific political background, candidates and parties sometimes lack equal opportunity of access to the media and other means of communication. Chile is one of the few countries with a daily paper (La Nación) owned and run by the government. This has traditionally been used as a propaganda machine for the incumbent government, presenting much more political bias than the privately owned papers and media overall. For most of the period under analysis (until April 2010), government control of La Nación compensated to some extent (because of low circulation) for the weaker political bias of the dominant privately owned paper. Moreover, the government owns the largest free TV channel (TVN), which by law is required to provide balanced and equal access to all political views and parties, a regulation which is strictly observed.

In 2002, the Greek parliament passed Law 3023/2002 on the financing of political parties and media access by parties and candidates during electoral campaigns. This law, which regulated access to the media during the parliamentary elections of 2004, 2007 and 2009, stipulates that individual candidates and parties have unlimited access to media. Three organs are entrusted with the monitoring of the law’s implementation: first, a government authority called the Secretariat General of Communication-Secretariat General of Information, which is headed by a secretary general. This is a political appointee, who works closely with the incumbent government’s spokesperson. Second is an independent administrative authority, the National Council for Radio and Television, which is entitled to regulate the media sector in Greece. In reality, this council bends easily to the incumbent government’s preferences, as formulated by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), the government’s spokesperson and the aforementioned secretariat. Third in this regulatory arena is a committee convened during electoral campaigns, including representatives of all parties holding at least one parliamentary seat. The TV and radio time slots allocated to parties during campaigns are proportional to the share of the vote each obtained in the preceding national election. During the 30 days of an electoral campaign, a party can freely use a 10-minute long slot every week to propagate its electoral messages. Parties can buy additional time by paying what are generally high fees to state-owned and private media organizations.
This system provides incentives for every party to try to outspend the others, and a disincentive for new parties to enter the electoral competition. Newly founded parties, parties which failed to obtain any parliamentary seats in the previous elections, and parties with poor financial resources are discriminated against.

Access to television by parties and candidates is regulated by a law (Law 28/2000) that provides for equal time for each party during electoral campaigns. An independent oversight authority (Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni, AGCOM) ensures that the rules are followed and has the power to sanction violations. This power is effectively used. The fact that major private television companies (Mediaset) are controlled by the current prime minister and leader of the largest party enables the parties of the center-right to enjoy somewhat more favorable treatment in the news services. Public television is controlled by a parliamentary committee which reflects the composition of the whole parliament. Although the government in office typically attracts more air time than the opposition, the treatment of the different parties by the public broadcaster is overall fairly balanced. In the print sector, the large variety of newspapers both with and without a clear political orientation provides a sufficiently balanced coverage of all positions. However, parliamentary outsiders (such as new parties) have virtually no access to the media. This was evident in the regional elections in March 2010, when Beppo Grillo’s Movement 5 Stars entered the political scene. A good example of media politicization is the way that RAI TG1 (the main evening TV news program on the first public channel) director Minzolini politicized this news program.

All newspapers are closely tied to political parties and tend to be partisan, especially during election campaigns. This situation is to the advantage of the larger political parties, especially the CSV, which can count on the support of a newspaper empire that is also close to the Catholic Church, which plays an almost hegemonic role in print media. As there are no public broadcasters in Luxembourg to counterbalance this influence, the one private broadcaster assumes this role. During election campaigns, the government provides the political party lists with airtime and the opportunity to broadcast television ads on a more or less equal footing with each other. Under the government’s oversight, roundtable discussions with candidates from all the lists are organized.
The financing of election campaigns, particularly the distribution of promotional leaflets by post, is granted by law, although this guarantees minimal electoral success.

According to Law No. 3984 on the establishment of radio and television enterprises and broadcasts, dated April 20, 1994 (Paragraph N, Article 4), “equality of opportunity shall be established with respect to political parties and democratic groups; broadcasts shall not be biased or partial; [and] broadcasts shall not violate the principles of the election bans which are determined at election times.” The mainstream media companies basically provide equal opportunity of access for major political parties in parliamentary and local elections. Negative or biased political propaganda or advertisements performed by anti-government or anti-opposition media companies are widespread, especially during campaign periods. Between elections, the government party uses the TRT, the state-run broadcast service, for its propaganda purposes free of charge. In addition, the distribution of free broadcast time during political campaigns is unequal, weighted in favor of the government and main opposition parties (amended Article 52, Law No. 298 of April 26, 1961), in violation of the constitutional provisions on fundamental rights and freedoms. Although hundreds of local radio and TV stations broadcast without having a legal frequency license, they may provide alternative means of political communication.