The IBA’s intentions are noble, argues GOVIN REDDY, but the body has not stopped to think of the disastrous impact its actions could have on the public broadcaster
MUCH of recent media coverage of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) has focused on its financial mismanagement, but there has been little reflection on its actual regulatory performance with regard to the SABC.
While the IBA has made progress in reregulating broadcasting in South Africa and can be satisfied with certain achievements, it is questionable whether it has succeeded in creating an overall framework that will ensure the development of a vibrant broadcasting environment. This is particularly the case with the public broadcaster.
In terms of the IBA Act of 1993, one of the duties with which the IBA, acting in the public interest, was charged, was to “protect the integrity and viability of public broadcasting services”. How the authority has gone about this task and the consequence of its decisions make for salutary reading.
That the SABC’s monopoly of the airwaves should have been broken up is beyond dispute. Many of us now serving in the corporation campaigned vigorously over the years for a more democratic broadcasting dispensation. However, how the IBA has approached this process has been short- sighted to say the least, particularly given the pressures now facing the public broadcaster to be both commercially viable and fulfil its public service mandate.
One of the first concrete acts of the IBA was to sell six of the SABC’s most cost- effective and profitable stations, resulting in a loss of R90-million per annum, which would normally be used to cross-subsidise the corporation’s more costly, loss-making public service stations.
In its Triple Inquiry report of August 1995, the IBA said its decision to sell these stations was in order “to reduce the SABC’s overwhelming dominance of radio considerably, by selling off … stations, making them available to new entrants to the radio industry…” It further explained that the decision reflected the need “to allow different kinds of radio for different audiences, with relatively light regulation that allows stations to format in a way that caters for a range of tastes on different stations”.
But who exactly has benefited from the sale of these stations, and to what extent have they diversified and enriched the radio industry?
Are the new owners of KFM, Highveld Stereo or Radio Algoa substantially different by way of class or race from the SABC’s managers and programmers? More pertinently, is the content and style of radio programming offered anything different from the old? And how many fresh new voices are we hearing on those stations?
Essentially the station formats have not changed. The same music is being played, by and large the same voices are on air, and as far as listeners are concerned, nothing has changed. For the SABC, however, the impact on its revenue base has been devastating.
We are having to appeal to government for assistance to upgrade the nine African language stations, and increasingly are having to take programming decisions in terms of what is commercially viable and will attract advertising rather than developing quality programmes which will enrich the choice available to listeners.
The bottom-line mentality is having its impact in small ways, but, ultimately, the effect could be serious, in terms of the depth and scope of news and information the SABC is able to offer listeners and viewers. Already current affairs programmes on radio are “rationed” in terms of the number of foreign correspondents’ reports they may commission, and economies of scale will result in greater centralisation of SABC operations in Auckland Park, a reduction in regional representation of the SABC and a consequent loss of contact with what is happening in all corners of our country.
On television we have been forced to schedule our current affairs programmes later at night in order to offer prime time to sitcoms which will attract the advertising necessary to sustain the service.
In addition to the loss of annual revenue produced by the six stations, the situation has been exacerbated by the IBA’s response to the government’s announcement that it will pocket the R500-million from the sale of the stations, rather than allow the SABC to plough it back into its operations as initially agreed.
The IBA’s stony silence on this about-turn by government is puzzling and worrying. Its failure to take a position does not inspire confidence and, from a SABC perspective, its tame acquiescence to government at great cost to ourselves has done little to build trust between regulator and broadcaster.
The present dispute that has arisen over the sale of Radio Jacaranda is a further indictment of the wisdom of the IBA and its motives. Why was the bid by Naledi Media Investments turned down when it satisfied all the requirements and offered R20- million more than the next bidder? The SABC had indicated that it found the Naledi bid more acceptable, but despite this, the IBA chose to award the station to Newshelf 71.
Was this decision based on anything more than a desire by the IBA to throw its weight around and show the SABC who is boss? If so, it was an expensive one- upmanship gesture that cost the public broadcaster, and indirectly the public, R20-million.
In its August 1995 Triple Inquiry report the IBA proposed that, “the SABC proposal for the national public broadcaster to start a multilingual youth station for the 13-25 year age group of all races be accepted …” Either the authority has a short memory or it chose deliberately to ignore its earlier recommendation when it decided to grant a commercial licence to a regional youth station to be set up in Johannesburg.
It is not clear what prompted the authority to grant this licence, since there were other strong commercial bids. The SABC already had an application firmly on the table, and surely any commitment to nation- building should give preference to a national, rather than a regional, youth station?
The collapse of the IBA is a matter for grave concern regarding the development of an independent and credible regulatory authority, not to mention the cost to the public coffers.
But, it may be a blessing in disguise. The resurrected IBA will have the chance to shed its reputation for self aggrandisement and ill-conceived decisions, and apply itself to the tasks at hand, not least of which is the protection of the viability of the national public broadcaster.
Govin Reddy is chief executive at SABC Radio. The IBA will be given the space to respond to this article next week