Recently I have been invited to speak on the topic of public service broadcasting at a number of gatherings. There was the Media Institute of Southern Africa’s conference, a seminar held by the SABC at Sun City (which I was unable attend), and next week I have an event hosted by the Southern African Broadcasting Association, an organisation of the national broadcasters in the SADC region.
A range of similar concerns seems to be driving this frenzy of workshops, conferences and seminars. At its core appears to be the concern that broadcasters in our region are more “state” than “public”, and that political controls undermine their editorial and programming independence. There are also concerns about the financing and funding of national broadcasters, as well issues of governance, management and accountability. A final issue is the challenge posed by the competition most national broadcasters face from a plethora of private broadcasters and satellite channels.
I think it is a commendable thing that this debate is happening because national broadcasters in Africa, often due to their reach, are the genuine mass media – and potentially hold huge influence politically and culturally. In almost all countries in Southern Africa they use a greater diversity of languages in their radio services, reaching both the elite and the masses. They also carry more news, and their election coverage is much wider than, say, newspapers, which require literacy. Often politicians consider national broadcasters critical in reaching their electorate.
But African national broadcasters have a history of being used as instruments of political propaganda, by both colonial and post-colonial governments. In their colonial incarnation they were indeed “state” broadcasters, used as instruments of political and cultural domination. Many post-colonial governments inherited this method of management, while claiming to be pursuing the altruistic goals of nation-building and national development.
In a nutshell, what a state broadcaster does is communicate agendas of the powerful to citizens who have limited channels of feedback. They are effectively a one-way communication channel, in which some topics are taboo and some voices censored. State broadcasters also practice the art of elevating some beyond scrutiny and accountability, while consigning others to permanent vilification and vitriol. They do not foster nation-building and development, but a culture of acquiescence. In relation to governance, they often have management structures staffed by political apparatchiks whose loyalty is to their political masters – not to the citizens who need information if they are to be empowered to participate in democratisation and development.
In contrast, genuine public broadcasters are a platform for the representation of the complex realities and developmental challenges facing countries in a changing world. A genuine public broadcaster gives space to a range of communicators across the social spectrum, in an attempt to foster the kind of consensus that promotes a better life for all. In its programming and news it allows for a diversity of voices on a wide range of issues and knows no sacred cows. By so doing it sets the standards of editorial independence and compelling programming that creates benchmarks for other broadcasters. More importantly, it translates into reality the idea that the real owners of national broadcasters are the generality of the public as citizens, who often fund and finance the broadcasters through licence fees or public subsidies. In governance then, the critical thing about public broadcasters is that its board members and managers owe their loyalties to the public – not politicians and advertisers – and their key test is whether they are meeting the public’s communication, information and entertainment needs.
Let me end this piece by saying that if you want to know whether your national broadcaster is a genuine public broadcaster, test whether it meets most of these criteria. If not, liberate yourself by joining the frenzied debate to create one in your own country.
Tawana Kupe is an Associate Professor of Media Studies and Head of the School of Literature, Language and Media Studies at Wits University.