The Broadcasting Amendment Bill 2002 has raised a fair amount of headline-grabbing controversy around the issue of the SABC’s editorial independence. But debate on government’s attempt to solve broadcasting’s language question, although potentially as controversial, has not been forthcoming. The issue here concerns cabinet’s announcement of its intention to create two new regional broadcasters, using a cluster of those African languages that are not used much on the SABC channels.
In principle the move is commendable. The government has finally recognised that the current position violates the constitutional status of these languages. A public broadcaster must ensure fair and equitable representation of languages in its full range of programming. One does not need to be an African cultural nationalist to appreciate that there is a large body of African views in need of a broadcast presence.
However, when you have three channels dedicated to national broadcasting and 11 national languages to accommodate, the crux becomes more complicated than the ideal. There are commercial realities. In a global context where television has to respond to commercially driven competitors, where will the money for these channels come from? Who out there is going to finance the costs of producing Tshivenda documentaries, dramas, and comedies? Who out there is going to foot the bill for newsgathering and reporting in Tshivenda, including the costs of training Venda journalists to report in and from Venda?
However, when you have three channels dedicated to national broadcasting and 11 national languages to accommodate, the crux becomes more complicated than the ideal. There are commercial realities. In a global context where television has to respond to commercially driven competitors, where will the money for these channels come from?
More questions
The SABC management and board have confirmed in the recent furore that the language requirement and the public broadcasting mandate is one they cannot afford. According to current research, these languages draw audiences from the lower LSMs, and are therefore not highly attractive to advertisers.
So, in launching the channels, is the government’s thinking that once these broadcasters have been set up it will become clear to advertisers that they are a potentially huge geographically and linguistically distinct market? Will the exclusion of English, when its domination is not just in media but also in education, government, the courts, and business, not in fact make the stations unattractive to viewers and advertisers who, while they may not necessarily accept the dominance of English, are nevertheless pragmatic about its power? Could this not result in the further marginalisation of these languages?
Some Answers
The recognition that 10 of the official languages are marginalised in television is long overdue. But, as is evident, there must be practical steps to achieve the policy goals. The implementation will have to make both political and ideological sense, as well as be affordable and viable.
A possibility is to spread the 11 official languages across the existing three SABC channels and the proposed two new channels. This will ensure representation of languages across channels rather than concentration within a channel. In this scenario, particular channels could specialise in at least 2 languages for the main news bulletin and specific genres. Outside of news, drama, and documentaries, every channel would be required to have a quota of programming in at least four of the other official languages, as well as English.
A possibility is to spread the 11 official languages across the existing three SABC channels and the proposed two new channels. This will ensure representation of languages across channels rather than concentration within a channel.
If government tackled the question along these (or similar) lines, the question of financing production would be more manageable as programming in each language would be diluted. English programming, which does attract advertising and which is important for every language group, would still take up time on the schedule. As importantly, smaller languages would have a better chance of realistically fulfilling the programme range.
Dr. Tawana Kupe is head of media studies at Wits University’s School of Literature and Language Studies. He has lectured in media and communication at the University of Zimbabwe, University of Oslo, and Rhodes University.