Isn’t it getting to you that the decade of democracy still seems so far from overcoming poverty? That South Africa is still lined with shacks, and that Reconstruction and Development Programme matchbox dwellings — where they exist — are no different in size and uniformity to the houses laid out during apartheid?
Doesn’t it distress you to deal, daily, with jobless people plying pathetic trades at the traffic lights? And that your precautions against crime are ultimately folly as long as current poverty levels persist?
Then, in this mindset, you read that Minister of Finance Trevor Manuel has said, ominously, there is too much money going to social grants. Nine million people receive these pittances at present. Manuel now argues that the growth rate is not sustainable, given other spending needs (the arms deal?).
The signs, therefore, seem to be that the ”government of the poor” will cut back on welfare rights. Continued growth of the number of jobless sans a social safety net (such as it is) is a highly possible scenario.
Meanwhile, a Human Sciences Research Council study released this year shows that in 2001, 57% of South African were not only below the poverty income line, but had sunk even deeper than they were in 1996. Looking ahead, the poverty crisis could worsen yet.
So what can the media do? This national blight requires us to be a bit more thoughtful about how coverage could make a difference. Starting with assessing how poverty is reported at present, there are two methodological tricks to tackle:
- What concrete manifestations count as poverty-related stories?
- What stories are missing a poverty angle when they arguably ought to include such?
On the first question, the much-maligned World Bank has a helpful definition: ”Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not being able to go to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time.
”Poverty is losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom. Poverty has many faces, changing from place to place and across time…”
In this light, we need to assess media coverage of poverty across a wide range of stories — from homelessness and joblessness to health, water and human rights.
On the second question, where there is a blind spot in the coverage, we need to identify when poverty is effaced. To take a crude case, this would be when a report that ”the economic fundamentals are sound” forgets to contrast the claim with the unemployment rate.
Another example would be a story on welcome summer rains that remains silent, however, about poor people in houses that leak.
To assess actual poverty coverage, I worked with the Media Monitoring Project to track 18 different media over a month last year. A total of 559 poverty stories were identified during this time. This is what we found:
- Among daily papers, Business Day had the most reports, even more than the Sowetan. The Star had the least.
- SABC3 had more stories than e.tv.
- Surprisingly, radio stations Ukhozi and Umhlobo Wenene had miniscule poverty coverage.
We did not assess blind spots in coverage, though Ukhozi and Umhlobo Wenene would feature strongly in this regard. But, of related interest, two-thirds of the identified coverage of poverty was in the form of stories where the actual word ”poverty” did not feature.
In other words, the bulk of poverty stories we scrutinised were about specific manifestations (for example, about jobs or housing), cited without reference to the umbrella term ”poverty”.
Arguably, without this generic label, it is hard to communicate that the reports are on a generalised condition with interdependent and mutually reinforcing dimensions.
This view is supported by another finding: only a third of coverage dealt with multiple manifestations of poverty within the same story. A greater number had one-dimensional coverage.
To sum up, there is insufficient linkage of poverty-related stories to each other, or to a broader conceptualisation of the problem. We did find that almost a third of articles was about poverty in general, but disconnected to any specific manifestations.
The result of all this? A picture that is not conducive to a holistic grasp of poverty — or of development.
Other salient findings were:
- In terms of proportions between concrete manifestations, unemployment constituted the largest category with 20% of the stories. Next came homelessness and inadequate housing at 9%, hunger at 8% and education (such as illiteracy stories) at 6%. The remainder was made up of stories dealing with health, land, shortage of money, human rights, social security, state services, water issues and credit arrears.
- The research showed that just 6% of stories included a gender angle, and that only a quarter was sympathetic in tone regarding the poor.
- Voices of the poor were present at least in 60% of all the stories, but against this there were overwhelmingly many more sources who came from outside the ranks of the poor. The government, politicians, business, academics and donor organisations made up almost 90% of those being quoted.
- Regarding agency, one in four stories implied that the solutions to poverty were to be found among the poor themselves. A third of the stories presented the government as the responsible party. Among the remainder, there were stories that pointed no fingers at all. The result, in large part, was to let off the hook the constituencies of business, civil society … and, yes, the media.
Over recent years, South African journalists have become sensitised regarding race — for example, in selecting sources. There has been some progress, though not enough, in being conscious of gender issues. But class considerations have been left behind — despite the immensity of poverty in South Africa. With Manuel’s question marks about the future of poverty-alleviation grants, it’s time, therefore, for editors — and audiences — to make changes.
More and better coverage can keep poverty issues at the top of the public agenda, and promote real debate around government grant expenditure. If Business Day can provide extensive coverage for elite audiences and not alienate them, there is no reason why mass-oriented media such as Ukhozi, or the Daily Sun for that matter, cannot do likewise.
We also need more interlinked and all-rounded stories, and better integration of poverty and gender issues. A more balanced perspective on responsibility for action could stress the value of partnerships (between the government, business, civil society, the poor and so forth).
Sustained and strategic coverage of poverty can pull heartstrings and inspire action; it can educate and empower. Along with this, the old watchdog role has real relevance in exposing incompetence and corruption that perpetuates poverty.
To upgrade poverty coverage will take better journalism — such as follow-ups (for example of last year’s jobs summit) and getting journalists out the office to find poor people as sources.
There also needs to be renovation — moving journalism away from single-issue stories towards more complex renditions that show concrete interconnections and which also link these specifics to the general issue.
Rising to the challenge will require a pro-active approach by media people. Failing this, there will continue to be a half-baked approach on perhaps the most important story of the coming 10 years.
This would mean that we will have failed the poor people of this country — to everyone’s detriment.