Peter Matlare is a consummate diplomat. He needs to be. He has the toughest CEO job in South African media. Being chief executive of the SABC means dealing with the challenges faced by any other media chief executive performing the daily balancing trick with the demands made by shareholders, staff and advertisers and then it means a little morePeter Matlare must somehow ensure that his organisation advances the national and public interest.
A month ago these twin concepts were as vague in practice as they remain in theory. To the chagrin of the Democratic Alliance (who distanced themselves from the decision), things aren’t so comfortably vague in the real world anymore. Parliament has just written the concepts into law, yet is still admittedly unwilling to get specific.
So here’s a more concrete example of why Matlare has such a tough job. In mid October, days before the law in question was finalised, he said he was opposed to any clauses that required him to seek ministerial approval on policies ‘to ensure accurate, accountable and fair reporting by the corporation to advance the national and public interest of the Republic.’
“We objected to this as interference with our mandate and a danger to our editorial independence,” he added.
And in case it appears as if government is in fact interfering with the SABC – another cut-and-dried case of politicians grabbing a slice of the media power base here’s another example of why Matlare’s job is so difficult. When the CEO said that communications minister Ivy Matsepe-Cassaburri had announced she would reinstate a clause guaranteeing the SABC’s editorial independence, he wasn’t joking.
The law in question is of course the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. The clause which the Department of Communications wanted to strike is the notorious number 6.2. It protects the SABC “in pursuit of its objectives and in exercise of its powers [to] enjoy freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence.”
Clause 6.2 is right there, in the final Broadcasting Amendment Bill, in black and white. So is the stuff about national and public interest.
National Interest vs. Public Interest
The thing is, with the South African government as the SABC’s only shareholder, Matlare doesn’t get to determine the broadcaster’s policy in isolation. As erudite and well-informed on the issues as he is, there’s a whole army of equally erudite, well-informed personages below him, next to him, and above him. One positive spin-off that’s emerged from the tug-of-war on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill is that it has provided the impetus for all relevant officials to ask a critical question: what exactly is the SABC’s status in our society?
It all boils down to a definition that centres around that awkward ‘national interest versus public interest’ debate. The debate is crucial in light of the danger that the SABC does not become, or is not perceived to be, the mouthpiece of the ANC. As many observers warn, it can be a short hop from national interest to ruling party interest especially if one is too literal and takes ‘nation’ to mean ‘state,’ ‘state’ to mean ‘government,’ and ‘government’ to mean ‘party of the day.’
It all boils down to a definition that centres around that awkward ‘national interest versus public interest’ debate. The debate is crucial in light of the danger that the SABC does not become, or is not perceived to be, the mouthpiece of the ANC.
So it was very appropriate that a handful of these relevant and erudite officials met at Wits University on the 25th anniversary of media’s blackest day to tell us exactly how the debate is going. Not only was October 19th 2002 exactly a quarter-century after the nationalist government forcefully shut operations on non-white newspapers The World and The Weekend World, it was also one day after the current parliament closed deliberations on the Bill.
The first to speak was Joel Netshitenze, head of the Government Communication and Information Service (GCIS). One would think that as the ANC’s final line of contact with the media, Netshitenze would be overtly in favour of South African media acting in the national interest. One would, in a sense, be correct. “The media should be afforded the space to flourish as a critical institution,” said Netshitenze, “but this does not presume journalists are unique. Journalists are impacted upon by society.”
Netshitenze pointed out that the media has immense power and that therefore “there has to be some form of accountability.” In defining the national interest as an “aggregate of things” and the “sixth sense of a nation,” he stated that it “should not be subsumed to fleeting passions of public mood swings.” Offering more concrete examples of the national interest concept, he referred to a hierarchy with the principles of the constitution uppermost; next national goals such as economic growth, elimination of crime, and poverty eradication; and lastly issues on which there is national consensus, such as the need to implement HIV/AIDS awareness programmes. “In our analysis of media reporting, we have noticed that where there is no controversy, there is very little reporting of HIV/AIDS. My argument is that it is in the national interest to give as much coverage as possible to HIV/AIDS.”
Nesthitenze went on to assert that “the pursuit of the national interest by the media does not make for conformity and boring journalism.” He added an eminently quotable quote: “My view is that positive stories do not make for bad sales. Bad journalists make for bad sales.”
On the issue of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, Netshitenze simply said: “One would want to talk about what was in the mind of the drafters, but the most important issue is the final document.”
Next to take the floor was Mathatha Tsedu, editor of the Sunday Times, who was speaking in his capacity as chairperson of the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF). Tsedu immediately alluded to the ease with which the jump from national interest to ruling party interest could be made, but said he agreed with much of Netshitenze’s address. “It is important for us as the media to turn the spotlight on ourselves.”
Unsurprisingly, Tsedu preferred to concentrate on the public interest side of the coin. He divided the public into two groups the first “who are well-organised, vociferous and able to define their own interests,” and then “the silent ones, who don’t say anything.” His question, then, was which of the two the media serve. After remarking that in a polarised society like South Africa we only see things from the same perspective when one of our national sports teams wins, his answer was implicit and prescriptive: “We ought to be operating on behalf the poorer group instead of looking for sexy headlines that will sell in the green, leafy suburbs.”
Unlike Netshitenze, Tsedu did allow himself to comment on what was in the mind of the some of the members of the Department of Communications when the Bill was being banged out: “The most important point is that the attempt by certain people to make the SABC accountable to government has failed. But we shouldn’t forget that there is the existence of the kind of thinking in the Department of Communications that wants to make the SABC what is was a few years ago.”
Tsedu: “The most important point is that the attempt by certain people to make the SABC accountable to government has failed. But we shouldn’t forget that there is the existence of the kind of thinking in the Department of Communications that wants to make the SABC what is was a few years ago.”
Saved by the Bill?
There appeared to be consensus at the seminar that Nat Kekana, chair of the Portfolio Committee on Communciations, single-handedly forced the infamous clause 6.2 back into the Bill and thereby saved the broadcaster. Emphasisng that the ANC always looks to its own policies when considering draft legislation, Kekana stated: “In 1999, in the ANC manifesto, we said that we would continue to guarantee the editorial independence of the SABC. That is in the manifesto for everyone to see.”
Then Kekana explained the ANC’s version of the public’s expectations of its broadcaster. “We do not want an SABC that echoes CNN and BBC. We are encouraged by SABC Africait reflects what we think the public wants the SABC to be.”
The statement was a prelude to one more far-reaching, one that could imply a complete about-face on the broadcaster’s current mandate [see SABC’s commerical imperatives].
“In fact, what the SABC should be protected from is commercial interference. It is the advertisers and marketers that put the SABC in a corner as far as addressing plurality is concerned. It is up to us to develop a publicly-funded model dependent less on advertising.”
Kekana: “In fact, what the SABC should be protected from is commercial interference. It is the advertisers and marketers that put the SABC in a corner as far as addressing plurality is concerned. It is up to us to develop a publicly-funded model dependent less on advertising.”
Addressing a question from the floor, Kekana was at pains to place the issue in a global context. He drew a remarkable comparison between legislation in the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe that entitles the government in both countries to pull programmes off the air. “We are addressing the issue differently because of our past.”
Following Kekana was Ihron Rensburg, the SABC’s director of public and regulatory affairs and its sole participant in the seminar. The broader framework in which Rensburg placed the SABC was that of post-colonialism. In such a situation, he said, there must be a conflict. Rensburg implied that the broadacster’s role is to assist in a national transition from conflict to commonality. He asserted that the broadcaster must therefore be an “actor” in promoting the values of the constitution.
“The SABC cannot hold the audience that it must if it is not going to defend its independence,” said Rensburg. “We are satisfied with the outcome of the process that ended yesterday. I can confirm that the Broadcasting Amendment Bill will entrench the editorial independence of the SABC.”
Last to speak on the Bill was Jane Duncan of the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI). Duncan was openly on the attack. “The national interest is all too often the state interest dressed up as a more enduring and legitimate version of the public interest,” she said. “Opposition parties wanted references to the national interest struck from the Bill, and replaced with the public interest, given that the term has more standing in international law and is less open to politically dubious interpretations. Undoubtedly, the SABC would also lay claim to operating in the public interest.”
A Future of Interest
In light of the negative press that appears to stick to the SABC like eyeballs to Big Brother, Peter Matlare is anxious to highlight the good stuff about his organisation. He reminds us that the broadcaster has the largest reach in the country, with AMPS showing 19 million of the country’s total 22 million adult radio audience listening to his stations, and 17.5 million of the total 19.2 million adult television audience watching his channels.
“Other national research surveys show that our news reaches 85 percent of South Africans in all 11 official languages, compared to seven percent for e.tv and five percent for all newspapers. 84 percent of our audiences say that the SABC is South Africa’s most believable news service, and 78 percent say it is the most objective news service in the country.”
It’s a fair observation, not only because the press may be prone to have the odd go at the people in Auckland Park, but also because this particular person has quite a bit of balancing to do. For the likes of Marcel Golding, Ton Vosloo, William Kirsh, Jacob Modise, Tony Howard and Terry Moolman, the point of the balancing act is clear enough. These bosses must manage and create media brands that show a healthy return. But for Matlare, there is no such thing as the luxury of visible goalposts. His shareholders are government, so he can’t be measured solely against the bottom line. Perhaps the most important part of Matlare’s mandate is his responsibility to vague concepts. ‘Public service’ is his business.