Ahead of 4 November, whose election story are we telling?

“The election story belongs to the person standing in the queue, not the person on the ballot.”

It was a simple observation by Wade Manning, director of Defend Our Democracy, at last week’s Media Freedom Festival in Johannesburg, but one that deserves more attention as South Africa prepares for its local government elections on 4 November.

After all, how much of our election coverage is devoted to politicians, their promises, their disagreements and their campaigns, and how much to the people who will actually vote for them?

The question was one of several raised during the three-day festival, hosted by Moxii Africa, formerly Media Monitoring Africa, at the Goethe-Institut from 14 to 16 October. Under the theme Elections and Accountability: News, Digital Media and Information Integrity, journalists, researchers, civil society representatives and policymakers examined some of the challenges facing South Africa’s media.

With another election approaching, those challenges are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

For a start, we have a problem with trust.

The question of trust

The Reuters Institute’s 2026 Digital News Report found that trust in news among the South African online audience surveyed had fallen from 61% in 2022 to 50% this year. Another 42% said they sometimes or often avoided the news.

The survey primarily covered English-speaking online news users, rather than a nationally representative sample, but the trend is concerning.

At the same time, digital creators and social media personalities are becoming increasingly influential, particularly among younger audiences. People are often more willing to listen to someone they feel connected to than to a journalist working for an established news organisation.

We can argue about whether those creators have the necessary training or whether their information is sufficiently verified. But that doesn’t change the fact that audiences are choosing to get their news from them.

For journalists, the challenge is how to remain relevant without abandoning the standards that distinguish journalism from commentary, campaigning and content creation.

Beyond problems and conflict

One of the most interesting discussions at the festival concerned constructive journalism.

Ellen Heinrichs, founder and CEO of Germany’s Bonn Institute, presented a session titled The Value of Being Human: Constructive Journalism in the Age of AI. Her argument was that journalism needs to offer something beyond identifying problems and reporting conflict. It should also help audiences understand what can be done about those problems.

Constructive journalism is sometimes misunderstood as positive journalism. It isn’t. It doesn’t mean ignoring corruption, political failures or uncomfortable truths. It means examining possible responses to problems with the same rigour journalists apply when exposing them.

The Bonn Institute identifies three important elements: solutions, multiple perspectives and constructive dialogue.

What audiences need

Heinrichs spoke about the importance of engaging with “the people we work for” as a way of building trust. She also challenged journalists to think about what audiences actually need from the news, rather than simply what newsrooms believe they should be reporting.

Consider what that might mean for our local government elections.

A politician promises to fix water shortages or improve electricity supply. We report the promise, interview an opponent who disagrees, and move on to the next campaign event.

But what if we followed the story differently? Which municipalities have successfully addressed similar problems? How did they do it? What resources were needed? And what prevents another municipality from achieving the same results?

These are not easier stories to report. They require more research and often more questioning of official explanations. But they potentially tell voters far more than another exchange between political rivals.

Voices of the people

There is also the question of whose voices we include.

Moxii Africa’s election-monitoring research has highlighted how political parties and official sources tend to dominate coverage, while local government issues and the experiences of affected communities receive less sustained attention.

Manning’s observation about the person standing in the voting queue is particularly relevant here.

During elections, journalists naturally turn to party leaders, candidates and political analysts. Yet the people dealing with failing municipal services, unemployment, transport problems and unsafe communities often appear only as brief reactions to politicians’ promises.

Their experiences should be central to the coverage, not an afterthought.

Then there’s AI

Artificial intelligence adds another complication.

Much of the concern ahead of November is understandably focused on deepfakes, fabricated political statements and misleading videos. Generative AI makes it easier and cheaper to produce convincing material that can be distributed almost instantly.

But the problem goes beyond whether an image or recording is real.

Authentic material can also be selectively edited, stripped of context or amplified to create a misleading impression. A false allegation repeated often enough may shape public perceptions even after it has been corrected.

Increasingly, information is also being encountered through AI systems that select and summarise material for users. What happens when people begin relying on AI-generated answers rather than visiting the original news sources?

Measures that matter

Journalists therefore need to ask more than whether a claim is true. Where did it originate? Who is promoting it? Why is it spreading? And how can accurate information reach the same people who encountered the misleading material?

Fact-checking remains essential, but a correction cannot automatically undo the emotional or political effect of the original claim. Nor can we assume it will reach the same audience.

The Electoral Commission has already taken steps to address some of these risks. Its new Disinformation Code, introduced in September, requires political parties and candidates to verify information before distributing it, clearly label AI-generated campaign content and publicly correct false or misleading information within 36 hours of becoming aware of it. It also protects legitimate political criticism, satire and democratic debate.

These measures matter, but regulations alone cannot guarantee an informed electorate.

Shrinking resources

For newsrooms, there is another difficulty. All of this is happening while resources are shrinking. Journalists are expected to produce more content, across more platforms, in less time, often while competing against accounts that carry none of the editorial responsibilities they do.

AI can assist with research, transcription, translation and other routine newsroom tasks. But it also introduces questions about accuracy, transparency and the future relationship between journalists and their audiences.

It is tempting to respond by producing even more content, faster. But I doubt that is what audiences who have stopped following the news are looking for.

Reporting is not only about gathering statements and reproducing facts. It involves judgement, understanding context, challenging assumptions and deciding which questions have not yet been asked. These are precisely the things that become more important as technology changes how information is produced and distributed.

For me, one of the most useful ideas to emerge from the festival was that journalists need to reconsider not only how they tell stories, but which stories they choose to tell.

Examine the promises

As 4 November approaches, that means looking beyond campaign events and political personalities to the concerns of voters themselves. It means examining promises rather than simply repeating them, seeking out voices we routinely overlook, and finding ways to explain complicated issues without reducing them to political slogans.

It also means recognising that people who have stopped following the news are not necessarily uninterested in what happens around them. They may simply not be finding enough information that helps them understand their circumstances or make decisions.

This is where the work of Moxii Africa is particularly relevant. Its ninth Media Freedom Festival brought together organisations working across journalism, media freedom, digital rights and democracy.

Election initiatives

Beyond the festival, Moxii Africa monitors election coverage and online political conversations, working with partners including the South African National Editors’ Forum and Africa Check.

Its Election Watch initiative provides journalists and citizens with monitoring and accountability resources, while Real411, officially designated by the Electoral Commission as the platform for reporting digital election disinformation, enables the public to report suspected disinformation, hate speech, incitement to violence and harassment of journalists. Complaints are independently assessed, with outcomes published and an appeals process available.

These are important contributions at a time when the credibility of information is being challenged from so many directions. But the broader responsibility remains with all of us working in journalism.

We have spent years debating how technology is changing the news. With voters about to decide who governs their municipalities, perhaps we should spend just as much time asking whether the news we produce is helping them make that choice.

* Summary created by AI

Paula Slier is an international journalist and speaker who works on information warfare, disinformation and media literacy. She has reported from conflict zones across the Middle East, Africa and Europe.