The structure — not just the colour — of South Africa’s newspaper industry is where the real problem lies, writes Bruce Cohen
CARL NIEHAUS should know better. As one of the African National Congress’ key media liaison figures during the run-up to the April 1994 elections, he got to know the press as well as any. So his outburst in the Sunday Independent this past weekend — a contribution to the increasingly ugly but nonetheless vital debate over media control in this country — was inexplicable.
The issue, he suggests, boils down to a conspiracy of (white) sub-editors who spike and maul the copy of black journalists!
The silliness of Niehaus’ contribution is matched only by the attack of attorney Christine Qunta, who raged in the Sowetan last week against Mark Gevisser, arguably the country’s most thoughtful writer. Gevisser, she alleges, uses “elevate-to- assassinate” tactics to destroy the black elite in his weekly profiles in the Mail & Guardian. After all, he described Enterprise editor Thami Mazwai as
But Mazwai, who has given the debate over media control a fresh and welcome kick-start, is also guilty of narrow typecasting, of reducing this important issue to white versus black, contributing to an unnecessary polarisation of hard-working journalists in this country and diverting focus away from the core problem facing the press in South Africa.
The crisis facing the South African press is not only one of colour. It is one of control. Three companies (Independent, Naspers and Times Media Limited) hold an intolerable monoply of ideas, information and communication. Niehaus, in his hunt for a scapegoat, conveniently ignores his party’s own responsibility for this. The ANC has systematically supported the further consolidation of the newspaper monopolies and has failed utterly to deal with the issue of promoting press
It was the ANC that welcomed Tony O’Reilly into the country to grab from Anglo, at a price that defies logic, the assets of Argus newspapers and then to allow the baked bean king to consolidate his position so that he now holds a total monopoly of the English language daily newspaper market in Cape Town and Durban in addition to his control over the Gauteng market.
It was the ANC that conveniently shut up as Times Media Limited (TML) quietly re-acquired the Daily Dispatch, giving TML an absolute control over the English daily press in East London and Port
It was the ANC that turned a blind eye to Naspers’ smooth share manoeuvre this month, which means the company — with 100 percent control over the Afrikaans daily newspaper market — will never have to let go. (Naspers sells close to 250 000 newspapers per day.)
“The evil of bigness in itself may be debatable”, says American media critic James Aronson, “but the dangers of monopoly news and monoply opinion-making are not.”
Over the past few years I have been researching the increasing concentration of media ownership in South Africa, noting the shifts and changes.
I have watched as, to tumultous welcome, Argus sold 52 percent of the Sowetan to Dr Nthato Motlana — but retained direct control over the newspaper at every level. Argus (now Independent), apart from its 20 percent stake, continues to hold the printing, distribution, advertising and management contracts for the paper. In other words, de facto control. (Motlana should be given credit for saving New Nation from a donor death-wish, but it too is now under Independent control.)
I have also noted Naspers’ plans to sell some of the shares in City Press to black owners, but it will remain firmly at the helm of the newspaper.
And I await JCI’s efforts to turn TML into a black empowerment company.
Doubtless some black people will profit handsomely from owning a share of South Africa’s newspaper monopolies and even influence the appointment of editors. But the truth is it alters only the colour — not the structure — of control of this key
Every day about 1,3-million daily newspapers are sold in South Africa. If you think that is impressive, it is not. In terms of per capita penetration (newspaper sales as a percentage of population), this is a penetration of around three percent, alongside countries like Tunisia, India, Botswana and Brazil. Contrast this with the penetrations of newspapers in countries like Norway (62 percent), Japan (58 percent) and the UK (36
Of these 1,3-million daily newspapers, 57 percent belong directly to, or are controlled by, Tony O’Reilly’s Independent Newspapers (formerly Argus). If we ignore the Afrikaans Press, then fully 75 percent of all English language daily newspapers sold in this country are O’Reilly papers.
O’Reilly’s monopoly is truly awesome at a metropolitan level. In the country’s second and third biggest cities (Cape Town and Durban), every single English daily metro newspaper — morning and afternoon — is an O’Reilly newspaper (Cape Times, The Argus, Daily News and Mercury). In Johannesburg and Pretoria, where around 580 000 daily English language papers are sold, O’Reilly controls 70 percent of the market (The Star, Sowetan, Pretoria News).
Few countries in the world can boast such a massive concentration of power.
Whether these monopolies employ white or black editors is a very important issue and Mazwai has rightly thrown down the gauntlet. But what matters more is their power in the market, in their extraordinary influence and control over the advertising and distribution channels — whether anyone else (black or white) could ever get a foot in the door.
In many countries there is clear recognition of the umbilical link between a diversity of press voices and the proper functioning of a democracy. They acknowledge that without state support, freedom of expression would become the right of the few who could afford to publish their opinions.
These countries — and they include Sweden, Norway, France, Holland, and Belgium — actively promote and support diversity of the press with a variety of financial incentives and tax breaks. They acknowledge that the state bears significant responsibility for the fulfilment of the goal of promoting a democratic — diverse — press.
Some take press diversity so seriously that they channel public funds directly into small newspapers. Countries like Austria, France, Sweden and Holland have devised elaborate schemes to ensure that all sectors of society have adequate media voices.
Instead of blaming pale sub-editors and intelligent writers for the miserable state of the South African press, Niehaus and others ought to be tackling the real issues.
Bruce Cohen is executive trustee of the South African Newspaper Education Trust and governing council member of the Media Institute of Southern Africa. He helped found the Independent Media Diversity Trust and has been involved in numerous media development programmes and projects aimed at strengthening the independent press in Southern