Some South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) content is tripe. But depending on your view, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. At least, that’s what emerged at a Johannesburg colloquium held by the public broadcaster last week.
One speaker referred to tripe as a delicacy in his culture, adding that well-cooked offal attracts hordes of flies. By analogy, he said, if the SABC provided good programmes, advertisers would come and the need for more funds would vanish.
Other speakers saw things rather differently. For them, the very content that attracts adverts is often trashy programming far from ”public service broadcasting” (PSB). In this view, the presence of ”flies” is not at all a positive omen, even if seen as a necessary evil in resourcing the SABC.
Another speaker raised a different issue. To taste good, he said, tripe has to be well-cleaned at the outset — yet too often government interference contaminates it.
What the dialogue reflected were varying views on how the SABC’s funding affects fulfilling PSB purposes:
- First, there was the stance that the current advertising-driven model works. It makes enough money for the corporation to thrive and achieve many public service objectives.
- Second, within the current model, there can and should be changes to reflect better provinces, languages, drama and other PSB programme qualities such as independence and impartiality;
- Third, some people believe there are inherent constraints in the status quo. Plus, looking ahead, there’s concern the model can’t meet growing demands and opportunities.
Sea change
What the colloquium signified is a sea change at the SABC. Under its previous board and leadership, there was no debate about the commercialised funding route. Now, there’s an exploring of other options.
SABC CEO Dali Mpofu outlined the key options at the colloquium. For him, the advertising model is an unstable revenue source because it depends on the vagaries of the market. Worse, it corrupts content in that ”the higher the proportion of advertising, the less socially good the programming”.
Mpofu’s chief financial officer, Robin Nicholson, echoed him — explaining how chasing adverts affects scheduling and marginalises poor audiences. News chief Snuki Zikalala bemoaned too little time for news in the face of so many commercials.
On licence fees as an alternative, Mpofu said that raising the level beyond the current 13% contribution to the SABC’s budget would not be affordable by most South Africans.
This leaves the option of ”public money” via government grants. According to Mpofu, this is ”the least desirable route” — not only because of public perceptions about government control, but also because it provides temptation for governments to use financial leverage to violate the independence of PSB.
His concern was rebutted by Professor Tawana Kupe, who observed that government control can exist even without government funding. On the other hand, said Kupe, one can have government funding without government control — as long as there are insulating mechanisms.
Government funds
The prospects for increased government funds were dealt with by Mathobi Mkhize, from the Treasury. Pointing to a recent R400-million grant to the broadcaster to upgrade its equipment, she declared: ”Government is taking care of SABC.”
However, Mkhize also acknowledged that the SABC’s mandate has increased, while government support has not. But she went on to state that the Treasury is heartened that the SABC is also seeking new ways to achieve its objectives.
Mpofu raised one of these alternatives as a public trust fund for PSB that could be resourced by a levy on the profits of private broadcasters. In response to later questions, he noted that this scenario would require the SABC to shed its more commercial stations and relinquish advertising to the private sector.
His point goes to the heart of the current funding model: should a gorilla SABC be playing the market to cross-subsidise itself, instead of an unleashed private sector regulated to cross-subsidise a purely PSB-based SABC?
In regard to this scenario, Mpofu said, however, that it would be a ”calamity” if the broadcaster were to become ”a 2% player like in the United States or Turkey”. He argued that a strong PSB compels commercial players to compete in quality news and local content, which is good for society.
”The corollary of PSB as a 2% player is that it would then compete on the terms of the private broadcasters — with pornography or banal content like simulated wrestling,” he said.
Superpower
The challenge is that if the SABC aims to be the PSB superpower of South African broadcasting, where will it find the extra resources to do this?
It needs cash to fund two new regional television services in indigenous languages. It also wants extra funds to address new audiences — especially poor people coming in from what Nicholson called a ”media desert”.
Nicholson’s address to the colloquium cited figures that even six months after the September 11 attacks in the US, about half-a-million poor South Africans still did not know of this global watershed event.
Yet, according to Nicholson, while 20% of South Africans still have no access to TV, in the past year alone 740 000 homes have joined the couch-potato ranks. For him, the SABC needs new products and platforms to cater to the languages, identities and values of such newcomers.
The upshot of all this? The SABC is likely to continue its commercial character, but to also seek additional revenues from the government and/or private broadcasters. Also on the cards are partnerships with donors, provinces, municipalities and even groups like the telecoms Universal Service Agency.
Just one question: If an expanded funding model does come into play, how much tripe will the SABC then be running as a result?