Dogs bark, caravans pass on. Opposition parties yap at the South African Broadcasting Corporation’s live television coverage of the African National Congress’s annual conference; newspapers take the corporation to task. But the national broadcaster moves on, leaving the fuss behind as if it were already history.
It was to be expected that opposition parties would make as much political capital as they could out of the issue. It was unexpected that the SABC would refuse outright to give equivalent treatment to at least the larger of the other political parties. Arguably, its stand played right into the opposition’s agenda.
Unsurprisingly, the ANC and the government are not complaining about the conduct of the SABC. Interestingly, South Africa now has the mirror opposite situation of the deep rift between the BBC and the British government. But the two situations also have something in common: their editorial policies.
The SABC released its completed editorial policies last week, having originally published them in draft form for public comment six months ago. The broadcaster says these finalised policies will come into force internally from April 1. Although there was scant coverage of this in the media, you will hear more about them as the poll nears and opposition parties target gaps between policy and practice.
In finalising its policies, the SABC has now set in stone its own formal standard against which its electoral performance can be measured. In doing so, the broadcaster has set itself up to be publicly assessed on fairly specific points. As the policy document itself recognises, ”broadcasting during elections is a testing time for the SABC”. It is during a poll, it notes, that the performance of the corporation is especially scrutinised.
The new policy document specifies that:
- ”When an event of national importance is of a party political nature, editorial staff are to ensure that SABC policies on objectivity, accuracy, fairness, impartiality and balance are adhered to.”
- ”News decisions have to be driven by the news judgement of news staff, and take account of the need to ensure that attention is given to thorough examination of the views, policies and campaigns of all the main political parties.”
In fact, these provisions are not really new or distinct from the interim policies that were already in operation during the ANC conference controversy. But what’s different is that they are no longer just draft guidelines. Instead, they now are the SABC’s final statement on how it should conduct itself. They are likely to be approved by the regulator, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, and they will potentially have substantial weight.
Where the new policies differ from the original discussion draft is in the area of how editorial control is exercised. The original document proposed a heavy-handed system of accountability to ”protect the public interest, the national interest, the interests of the SABC and its editorial staff and sources”.
The core components were:
- Editorial staff were to refer upwards all decisions in cases of ”extraordinary” coverage.
- This process could go all the way to the group chief executive officer (GCEO), whom the SABC for the first time formally declared to be the ”editor-in-chief”.
- Some topics required absolutely mandatory upward referral that could go even higher — through the group executive as a whole right up to the board. These topics would be ”any matter” that ”could have major financial, image, or public response implications” for the SABC.
- There were other mandatory upward referrals specified for less controversial matters (like doing interviews with criminals). The level these were to be referred to were ultimately that of the managing director of news (a vacant business-oriented position, which is still not filled), who in turn reported to the GCEO.
In line with many recommendations in the almost 1 000 submissions to the SABC’s draft policy document, much of the original has been toned down to result in ”lighter-touch” accountability in the final policy version:
- There is no longer any mention of the controversial terms of public or national interest.
- Upward referral is now manifestly described as ”voluntary”.
- The GCEO is still (despite several contrary representations to the SABC) designated as the ”editor-in-chief”. He is set down as being accountable to the board for all SABC content. However, the document also notes that his role is ”not to make day-to-day news or programming decisions”.
- This status of editor-in-chief is now described as ”one of many responsibilities that the GCEO assumes and should not be confused with the function of heads of radio, television, news, sport and education or of any of the other editors and channel and station managers employed by the SABC”.
- The upward referral, says the new document, is ”not intended to shift editorial-decision making upwards”, but rather to underpin collective decision-making and responsibility.
- This new policy document drops any reference to mandatory referral of matters with major ”implications”.
- It retains other mandatory referrals (like the interviews with criminals), but says that these should go to the level of the ”relevant head of programming” (as opposed to the managing director of news).
Much of these new policy systems echo those that have already been in place at the BBC. Ironically, the SABC adoption of these more ”light-touch” positions coincides with conservative calls in the United Kingdom for the British broadcaster to amend its policies to tighten control over its journalists.
This pressure on the BBC comes in the wake of severe criticism from the Hutton inquiry report. The result is that greater ”oversight” is likely to be sought in regard to BBC journalists. A more ”heavy-handed” upward referral may be instituted. Thus, just at the time that the SABC concedes more autonomy to its editorial staff, so the BBC seems set to trek off in the opposite direction.
The dangers of the BBC trajectory are very evident. According to the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), the story that triggered Hutton’s condemnation and the current pressure on the BBC was ”firmly in the ‘public interest”’. The NUJ says the story in fact ”revealed that reasons given by government to justify the invasion of Iraq were dubious and reflected concerns in the intelligence community that their work had been manipulated for political ends”.
The row relates to flaws in an otherwise largely factual report by BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan that weakened the British government’s case for war on Iraq.
Although he has since resigned, Gilligan’s parting statement still affirms: ”The government did sex up the [intelligence] dossier, transforming possibilities and probabilities into certainties, removing vital caveats; the 45-minute claim [of assembling weapons of mass destruction in that space of time] was the ‘classic example’ of this; and many in the intelligence services, including the leading expert in WMD [weapons of mass destruction] were unhappy about it.”
The BBC journalist nevertheless acknowledged he was wrong in reporting that (a) the government knew the 45-minute figure was probably wrong (Downing Street denies this), and (b) this was the view of his source (it was his own inference).
The sad point is that in making these mistakes, Gilligan violated the BBC’s policies of strict accuracy through what one writer has called the ”extemporising” he had done during a live and unscripted radio interview. These weaknesses in turn made the whole organisation vulnerable, allowing the government and Hutton to put the boot into the Beeb. Hence the likelihood now of more heavy-handed controls at the BBC and the danger that even well-founded criticism of the British government will be toned down.
In South Africa, it is not a reporter, but news managers, who have been accused of violating policies (albeit interim ones). Certainly, the ANC conference coverage decision raises questions and has not been credible enough to win legitimacy in the eyes of the opposition and the press.
The focus will now be on whether the SABC will implement the final version of its policies in a different manner. The broadcaster will have an uphill battle to show it is living up to its policies and to combat suspicions that the new ”light touch” referral system won’t be a cover for partisan political control emanating from the top.
The problems at the BBC and SABC are very different, but the solutions are not. In both cases, it is incumbent on the leadership to ensure policy implementation that enables the institutions to be able to defend effectively and convincingly their coverage decisions against criticisms from either governments or oppositions.
The SABC plans to put its staff through training workshops on its new policies over the next two months. The success or failure that results will be all too evident as the election draws nigh. Listen out for whether the volume of barking rises or falls, and whether the caravan takes note of the cacophony.
E-mail Guy Berger directly if you have a question about this article.
Guy Berger is head of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University and deputy chair of the South African National Editors Forum (Sanef). He was recently nominated for the World Technology Awards.