Association questions campaign rules’ impact on media coverage

The Portuguese and English Press Association (AIPIM) has questioned the Electoral Affairs Commission for the Legislative Assembly Election (CAEAL) on matters regarding the impact of the recently amended Electoral Law on media coverage.

The letter, sent to the CAEAL, comes after a request for a meeting was declined by the commission, allegedly due to agenda problems. It indicates that “over the past weeks several associates have expressed doubts” over the statements made by CAEAL members.

In the letter, AIPIM highlights two of the Electoral Law articles, namely; 75-A, which defines what is considered as “Electoral Propaganda” together with the article 188 which states the penalties and fines for law breaches. The association questioned the commission in order to clarify
the role and responsibilities of media companies.

The letter mentioned what was said during a CAEAL meeting with media representatives on March 8, stating that during the period between sharing the publication of the candidate list and the beginning of the campaign, the coverage of “implicit” acts of propaganda, such as “gestures, use of certain colors and dress” can be considered illegal. AIPIM finds there is a high degree of subjectivity in this ruling and asks how they would be able to ensure that situations like these, when they are solved individually and “case-by-case”, do not conclude in arbitrary resolutions.

Another of the points noted in the letter is a March 8 statement from the Government Information Bureau (GCS), which read: “The media should avoid the publication or interviews and reports regarding the candidates that might produce effect of electoral propaganda.” This statement led AIPIM to question if the media can interview a candidate during the above-mentioned period.  AIPIM also asked about an hypothetical interview situation. If a candidate makes any remarks regarding his political platform, could such an act can be considered an implicit suggestion to get votes. AIPIM also asked whether the media could be held accountable for any of these acts during interviews or live programs.

Another topic that gathered attention from the association related to social network platforms. Their query regarded the content and comments sections of social media. AIPIM asked if media could be held accountable for the comments made by third parties on their social network platforms and, if so, what would the consequences be for the media companies.

Doubts are also extended to another section of the same statement from GCS where the CAEAL advises the media to “elaborate internal guidelines regarding the news reports” to be followed by all staff “in order to protect themselves.” In response, AIPIM is calling on CAEAL to explain exactly what is the intention and the mechanics of such a process.

Opinion columns are another topic addressed in the letter. “If a former lawmaker writes a column in a newspaper, will he need to cease to do it if he is a candidate?” the letter asks. “Is there a risk to have a punishment if there are columns where the author makes an apology of political proposals made by a certain candidate?” RM