Globe International NGO | www.globeinter.org

• MNTV allocated 31% of its political and election prime time coverage to N. Enkhbayar, with an overwhelmingly positive or neutral tone. The second most-covered candidate, B. Erdenebat, received 25% of MNTV political and election prime time coverage, also mostly positive or neutral. The other two candidates, M. Enkhsaikhan and B. Jargalsaikhan, received 22% and 22% of the coverage respectively. The bias in favour of N. Enkhbayar at the initial stage of the monitoring, although it lessened at the end, still provided an advantage to this candidate on MNTV.

• Three of the five monitored private TV channels, UBS, TV-9 and TV-5, provided N. Enkhbayar with the biggest portion of their political, and election prime time coverage. M. Enkhsaikhan was the most often-presented candidate on Channel 25. Eagle TV throughout the whole monitoring provided its viewers with the most balanced coverage about candidates of all monitored TV stations.

• Mongolian National Radio devoted fairly equal amounts of political and election prime time coverage to candidates: N. Enkhbayar 22%, B. Jargalsaikhan 23%, M. Enkhsaikhan 27% and B. Erdenebat 28%. Coverage of all candidates was overwhelmingly positive or neutral in tone.

• The print media provided a plurality of views, but often showed strong bias either for or against a candidate. Consequently, voters were only able to form an objective view of the campaign if they read several publications.

• In a positive development, a televised debate involving all four candidates took place on MNTV. However, the format did not allow for real interaction between candidates.

• While most monitored TV channels provided a more balanced coverage of the candidates in the last four weeks of the campaign, this balance was not achieved because of improved reporting, but because most TV channels sold prime time news time to candidates (on an equal basis). This practice is totally unacceptable from the point of view of journalistic ethics.

• Another disturbing finding of GI throughout this project was the consistent practice by most monitored media outlets of neglecting to air opposing views in the body of a story.

Broadcast media

No	Candidate	MNTV	UBS	Eagle	TV5	TV9	Channel 25	MNR
1	B. Jargalsaikhan	22%	21%	28%	15%	18%	3%	23%
2	M. Enkhsaikhan	22%	20%	25%	21%	16%	59%	27%
3	N. Enkhbayar	31%	42%	24%	34%	53%	14%	22%
4	B. Erdenebat	25%	17%	23%	30%	13%	24%	28%

In the seven weeks of the official campaign in the media, Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP) candidate N. Enkhbayar received 31% of prime time coverage on MNTV news and analytical programs, 44% of which was for his role as Parliamentary Speaker rather than for his campaign activities. This amount of coverage was beyond that which was reasonable for his role as Parliamentary Speaker. The tone of the coverage was overwhelmingly positive or neutral. The second most-covered candidate, B. Erdenebat, received 25% of similar airtime, also positive or neutral. The other two candidates, B. Jargalsaikhan and M. Enkhsaikhan, each received 20% of the coverage.

Generally, there was very little negative information about candidates on MNTV news and current affairs programs; most of the candidate coverage was either positive or neutral. N. Enkhbayar was given the largest proportion of direct airtime to present his views and convey his message to the electorate. By displaying bias in favour of N. Enkhbayar, MNTV failed to meet its obligation to provide a balanced treatment of all candidates during the election process.

UBS TV also showed support for the Parliamentary Speaker, giving him 42% of its prime time coverage, overwhelmingly positive in tone. The next most covered candidate, B. Jargalsaikhan, received 21% of the channel`s political and election prime time coverage. While the tone of his coverage was mainly positive or neutral, B. Jargalsaikhan also received some criticism on the channel`s prime time news. Candidates M. Enkhsaikhan and B. Erdenebat were given 20% and 21% of such coverage respectively, all mainly positive or neutral in tone.

Eagle TV

Eagle TV prime time news programs offered its viewers the most balanced picture of the campaign. The media monitoring indicated that all four candidates received roughly equal proportions of the channel`s political and election prime time coverage: M. Enkhsaikhan (DP) 25%, B. Jargalsaikhan (MRP) 28%, B. Erdenebat (MP) 23% and N. Enkhbayar 24%. In tone, the coverage of the candidates was generally balanced, with all four receiving a slightly more positive than negative coverage. N. Enkhbayar received the most negative coverage.

TV-5

TV-5 devoted the largest proportion of its coverage to N. Enkhbayar, who received 34% of the channel`s prime time election and political coverage, a significant portion being in his role as Parliamentary Speaker. The second most-covered candidate was B. Erdenebat (30%). The other two candidates, M. Enkhsaikhan and B. Jargalsaikhan, received 21% and 15% of the coverage respectively. Coverage of all candidates was mainly positive or neutral.

TV-9

Like MNTV and UBS, TV-9 showed support for Parliamentary Speaker N. Enkhbayar, who received 53% of the prime time news and current affairs coverage of activities and opinions of candidates. The tone of the coverage was overwhelmingly positive or neutral. In the same period, his main opponent M. Enkhsaikhan received only 16% of such airtime, with equal proportions of positive and negative tone. B. Jargalsaikhan received 18% of airtime, more negative than positive, while B. Erdenebat was given 13% of the coverage, mainly neutral or positive in tone.

Channel 25

Channel 25 was the only TV broadcaster to offer wide-ranging and favourable coverage to M. Enkhsaikhan and a critical approach towards N. Enkhbayar. M. Enkhsaikhan was given as much as 59% of the channel`s prime time election and political coverage, the tone of which was overwhelmingly positive or neutral. In sharp contrast, candidate N. Enkhbayar received only 14% of such coverage, predominantly negative or neutral. The other two candidates, B. Jargalsaikhan and B. Erdenebat, received 3% and 24% of the coverage respectively. The former received equal proportions of positive and negative coverage.

This state-funded radio station devoted the biggest proportion of its news coverage of the candidates to B. Erdenebat (28%) and M. Enkhsaikhan (27%). The other two candidates received roughly equal proportions of MNR coverage: N. Enkhbayar 22%, B. Jargalsaikhan 23%. The tone of the coverage was somewhat more positive about B. Erdenebat.

The print media offered a plurality of views, but invariably showed strong bias either for or against a candidate. Consequently, voters could only form an objective view of the campaign if they read several publications.

People's Right

People`s Right gave M. Enkhsaikhan 43% of its total space devoted to the candidates, with a mainly positive or neutral tone. His main rival, N. Enkhbayar, received 32% of such coverage, more negative than positive in tone. The other two candidates, B. Erdenebat and B. Jargalsaikhan, received 13% and 12% respectively of the coverage, mainly negative in tone.

Today

Today allocated as much as 42 % of its candidate coverage to B. Erdenebat, mainly positive or neutral in tone. The second most covered candidate was N. Enkhbayar (25%) and third M. Enkhsaikhan (24%). N. Enkhbayar was the only candidate to receive mostly negative coverage. The fourth candidate, B. Jargalsaikhan, received 9% of the coverage.

Daily News

Daily News devoted 41% of its candidate coverage to N. Enkhbayar (MPRP). His main opponent M. Enkhsaikhan (DP) received 32% of such space. While the coverage of the DP candidate was exclusively positive or neutral, the MPRP candidate received heavy criticism.

The other two candidates, B. Erdenebat and B. Jargalsaikhan, received 21% and 6% respectively of the coverage.

Century News

Unlike the above two publications, Century News showed clear support for N. Enkhbayar, giving him as much as 67% of its candidate coverage, almost exclusively positive or neutral in tone. By contrast, M. Enkhsaikhan received only 14% of such coverage, predominantly negative in tone. The other two candidates, B. Jargalsaikhan and B. Erdenebat, received 9% and 10% respectively.

Broadcast media

TV-5

Candidate B. Erdenebat appeared three times on TV-5's regular Fostering Mongolia program, broadcast right before the major evening news program, immediately after campaigning began. On April 25, he was introduced as an individual and a businessman. The next day, April 26, B. Erdenebat talked about his election platform. On May 4, he was shown when the program discussed the development of Darkhan city. None of the other candidates appeared on the program.

On May 6, TV-5 showed Speaker N. Enkhbayar meeting journalists on World Press Freedom Day, when Mongolian Journalists' Confederation President Ms. D. Sarangerel (who is also a TV-5 director) presented to N. Enkhbayar a traditional blue ribbon and silver cup with milk and wished him success in the presidential election.

TV-9

This TV channel presented an unbalanced coverage of the issue of the debt owed by the Buyan company (whose former director was presidential candidate B. Jargalsaikhan) to the Japanese Marubeni corporation. While being critical of Buyan, the channel gave no opportunity for the company nor candidate B. Jargalsaikhan to respond on the issue. (April 25, May 1).

On the April 28 news bulletin, candidate M. Enkhsaikhan was accused of harming small and medium business when, as Prime Minister, he abolished import taxes, a decision reversed by candidate N. Enkhbayar when he was Prime Minister. M. Ehkhsaikhan was given no fair chance to respond.

MNTV

On the May 2 6pm TV news, candidate N. Enkhbayar was shown, although his name was not mentioned in the text, on an item concerning a visit by Energy Minister T. Ochirkhuu to the construction site of the Taishir hydro power station.

UBS

The UBS TV 8.30pm news on May 1 reported that candidate N. Enkhbayar when Prime Minister did much to support local producers. The story said that when candidate M. Enkhsaikhan was Prime Minister, he abolished import taxes, so harming domestic industry.

Reporters conducted street interviews on the resolution of the debt to Russia . Each interviewee said that for this, N. Enkhbayar deserved extremely well of his country. No alternative opinion was asked. (May 3, 8.30pm news

The MNR evening news block contained candidate information, but the sources were given very differently. Sometimes it was called ‘information from the press office' of the political party, at other times it was ‘our reporter/special reporter says,' often with no indication of where the information came from (11pm news, May 3, 4, 5, 6 ).

Election news blocks contained information about candidates that was sometimes too much like propaganda. For instance, the 11pm news on May 5 reported on candidate N. Enkhbayar , saying, “A head of the state will be elected from the homeland of Chinggis Khan after 800 years.” April 28's 6pm news reported, “When candidate Enkhsaikhan was meeting seniors in the constituency, he took it as a good sign that some people addressed him as President.”

Newspapers

Today

In the article headed From Begging to Pride published on April 27, candidate M. Enkhsaikhan was accused of causing poverty by abolishing import taxes, while the reporter said that N. Enkhbayar saved the country by reversing that decision. No facts were provided to support the allegation.

In the article headed Enkhsaikhan's Government Created a Legal Environment for Selling Mongolian Land to Foreigners , the author wrote about events that dated back 8 years.

This newspaper printed a number of articles accusing candidate N. Enkhbayar of corruption or being loyal to wrongdoers (issues of April 19, May 2, 4, 5 and 6). These articles dug too much into what had happened long ago.

People's Right

This newspaper published signed articles of opinion labelled ‘paid publication' (May 3, Trade Unions are MPRP Affiliates ).

In issue #79, a journalist used a well-known Mongolian saying, “Mongolians are strong when united" in the context that Mongolians would be stronger with Enkhbayar. The newspaper published an edited photo of M. Enkhsaikhan in front of the statue to Zorig, the murdered popular democrat.

Century News

Century News published an article (April 27) headed 1996-2000: Peak of Corruption , referring to a time when the Democratic Union coalition led by Prime Minister (now presidential candidate) M. Enkhsaikhan was in power; digging in the past.

An article was published (May 4) about tax relief worth 294 million MNT provided by then-Prime Minister and now presidential candidate M. Enkhsaikhan to a company owned by candidate B. Erdenebat. This happened 8 years ago, and no opportunity was given to these candidates to present their points of view.

The monitors observed many media effects in the dailies. Publications were too biased, or written about events 8-10 years old, or with no reference to information sources. It seemed to monitors that such materials were paid advertising. Unfortunately, there was no clear distinction between paid programs or publications and journalism. These items often misled the public by appearing to be objective information on the candidates.

During the election campaign, voters received a lot of negative or critical information on candidates without the chance given to the candidate to express his opinions or explain the situation. For example:

Negative information on N. Enkhbayar focused mainly on the payment of a debt equal to $250 million to Russia and $50 million which went missing while he was Prime Minister. Other allegations concerned a corruption network.

Negative information on M. Enkhsaikhan concerned his past position as Prime Minister, and mostly concerned allegations of an unprofitable contract signed with a Canadian mining company on Oyu-Tolgoi, the abolition of import taxes and bank bankrupcies.

Negative information on B. Jargalsaikhan was mainly about the debt allegedly owed by his Buyan company to the Japanese Marubeni corporation and to the Mongolian government.

Negative information on B. Erdedebat centred on his alleged tax debt to the govrnment.

Unfortunately, some negative information went through the Election-2005 news block without being indicated as paid material, so misleading the public. Indeed, no serious investigations were conducted by journalists. Negative information was heavy during the last days of the election campaign.

International standards allow a newspaper to announce openly which party or candidate it supports editorially, but none of the dailies so informed the public.

The daily newspapers published interviews about the TV debate between candidates, with commentaries on each particular candidate and a subjective assessment of who was good or bad.

There were no programs or publications on voter education other than GEC advertisements calling for the electorate to turn out to vote. Media outlets lacked solid journalism such as analysis of election platforms or questioning of political interests.

Media effects also measured how fairly the media covered important election events. The monitors saw the following events as important to the elections.

The media reported that the 4 candidate election management offices signed an agreement on a fair contest on ...., 2005. This comprised 5 articles and stated that if the parties engaged in activities contrary to the agreement, it would be considered violated. The agreement was valid until the time that parliament enacted a Law on Accepting the Power of the Presidency. Chapter 2, entitled Duties of the Parties of the Agreement, said: ‘It is strictly prohibited to act illegally' (2.1.1) and 12 actions were defined as illegal.

TV9 gave the public the full text of the Agreement and brought out the role of the MPRP election manager. MNTV reported briefly on the event while Channel 25 gave it great significance. UBS and TV5 paid little or no attention to the event.

On May 12, 2005, the Democratic Party, Mother Land Party and Republican Party called the press conference and demanded the resignation of the GEC. They claimed that the GEC had printed 80,000 extra voting ballots, 11% more than the allowed reserve. They claimed that this was a deliberate wrong-doing by the GEC in order to cast confusion on the election. The parties also claimed that party represenation in electoral districts and sub-districts was unbalanced and said that if GEC did not take action, they would continue to fight.

The parties held a public meeting called Fair Elections! on May 13, 2005, in Sukhbaatar Square. Earlier, on April 6, 2005, the GEC issued a statement denying that one party was over-represented, saying that of the 282 persons working in the sub-regions, 94 were MPRP members, 63 DP, 30 MLP and 17 RP. Of the 5,296 persons working in the electoral districts, 5,296 were MPRP members, 4,331 DP, 949 MLP and 286 RP. On April 27, 2005, J. Yadamsuren told journalists that, because of the claims of the three parties, he would be resigning if parliament agreed. Allegations of MPRP party over-representation on the GEC always excite great suspicion among other parties at election time. Resignation of the GEC was also a demand of the Healthy Society public movement.

There were reports on TV5 and UBS, and interviews with the Chairman and Secretary-General of the GEC, claiming, “It is impossible...there is not a big enough budget...the time is too short..." Channel 25 was more balanced in its reporting of the events, covering the complaints of the 3 parties and the GEC explanation. Eagle TV reacted quickly and the events were covered without any explanation.

Many public movements such as Healthy Society, For Social Development, the veterans' movement to increase pensions, the student movement to reduce tution fees, and trades unions were active before the presidential elections. TV5 and UBS were critical and negative about the events. MNTV was neutral in its reporting of the demand for the GEC to resign by the 3 parties and the Healthy Society citizen movement. TV9 was critical of the resignation call and said they had been told it was an attempt to create confusion in the elections.

UBS and TV5 covered the trade union movement without media effects and showed the meeting by movement representatives with N. Enkhbayar, and his promises to meet their demands.

On May 9, 2005, B. Erdenebat, Mother Land Party candidate, finished his campaigning in the provinces and went back to Ulaanbaatar. Before leaving Sharyn Gol, the candidate and his team called their party election office and the State Department of Security and asked to be met. They were 5 minutes late, but no security cars arrived. The team waited for a while and moved on to the city. When passing the White Gate, security car 00-04 crashed into the candidate's car.Both cars were seriously damaged, but fortunately no one was injured. Three days later, on May 12, 2005, MLP election manager H. Chuluunbaatar and press officer Sh. Sukhbaatar held a press conference and gave the party's statement on the accident. Their spokesman said that they were suprised that there had been nothing published on the three-day-old accident, so they decided to publicise it. He pointed out that the Law on Presidential Elections guarantees the security of candidates.

TV5 and UBS reported on the press conference without explanations or effects. MNTV covered the event as party advertising, TV9 tried to show that the candidate's driver was at fault and interviewed the driver of the security car. Channel 25 was more focused on the responsibilty of the security depatment.

MNR did not report on the Fair Contest Agreement; their position on the call for resignation of the GEC was neutral; and the accident was reported on the Election-2005 block as MLP paid news. They gave only brief reports on the Healthy Society movement and the Oyu Molgoi 50:50 movement