Here’s an idea that could break the polarisation around the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) — indeed, a mechanism for the broadcaster to get out the corner into which it has painted itself over the blacklisting saga.
To take a leaf from the New Partnership for Africa’s Development book, how about a peer-review system for African state-owned broadcasters, the SABC included?
The country-based African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) has been a relative success to date — with one flaw: it assesses good governance without any regard to the role of the media in the given society.
A broadcaster-based system could help remedy this omission — and, in the SABC’s case, introduce a third-party element into the stalemate between the institution and its critics.
A peer review involves broadcasters assessing each other in terms of indicators for proper public broadcasting, and making recommendations to reduce the gap.
If the current defensiveness by the SABC’s leadership is its response to the ”stick” of criticism, then a peer-review system might elicit a different response by constituting a ”carrot” for constructive engagement. This is because:
- the SABC — and other broadcasters in the system — would voluntarily enter the process; and
- in place of the current slanging match, a peer-review process would be a more objective and consensual exercise.
Like the APRM, the criteria for assessing the quality of public broadcasters would be agreed by participants in advance of the review. These elaborated standards would then serve as incontestable benchmarks for public broadcasting in Africa.
Thereafter it becomes a technical, rather than politicised, matter to assess how a given broadcaster matches up.
In addition, the APRM model includes an individual self-assessment in consultation with national stakeholders. So, the SABC could retain part of the initiative rather than feel it is being dictated to by others.
Also important is that the APRM approach emphasises the quality of underlying systems and processes. In other words, the focus for broadcasters would be on deeper issues than, for example, the person of Snuki Zikalala, or a particular expert source being dropped.
Thus the SABC — to its credit — has, for instance, editorial policies on the use of expert sources. But a peer review could go further and ask whether there is any system to monitor the diversity and representativity of sources actually being used by the broadcaster.
It could also, for example, check whether there are explicit guidelines for how the SABC relates to public transparency. If not, then the review panel could recommend how the institution should improve in this area.
Lastly, peer review is done by peers, which guarantees a collegiate and non-threatening approach. Plus, the outcome is fraternal advice, rather than judgements or condemnations.
In short, peer review is enabling rather than prescriptive, assessing the glass as half full rather than emphasising the half-empty.
Earlier this year, this writer began to push the idea of an APRM for broadcasters, and it was recently agreed to by the Southern African Broadcasting Association (Saba), of which the SABC is a leading member. With the current controversies around the SABC, the initiative is all the more timely.
There are some potential pitfalls, however:
- Saba would need to appoint, on the APRM model, a ”forum” of members agreeing to peer review — and this group needs to subscribe to basic principles. It cannot be a self-serving club cynically legitimising poor practices through peer review.
- A panel of eminent persons, as with the APRM, is also needed to oversee the process and propose recommendations to the forum. Without this, the process could be discredited.
- This panel needs to develop public broadcasting indicators and it is vital that these be critical and comprehensive, not bland or open to varying interpretation.
- Participants need to understand that peer review is not a competition with a title or reputation at stake. It is a serious and sincere attempt to develop a systematic process with the objective of improvement.
- The stakeholder consultation aspect of the review has to avoid degenerating into a dialogue of the deaf.
State-owned broadcasters in Africa are under siege, and often with reason. Rivals and critics are many — based on the fact that the broadcasters are too often arrogant and discredited government mouthpieces that also monopolise national frequencies.
But all such institutions, the SABC included, need to look to what happened in Eastern Europe once competition was introduced. There, only one country (Poland) made the transition to a proper public-service broadcaster that enjoys more than 10% of audience share. The rest resisted change and fell by the wayside.
A peer-review process, conducted by participants who share the survival challenge and who genuinely seek public-service progress, could a tonic for reform. It is a complement to, not a substitute for, advocacy and pressure for public broadcasting.
In the end, Southern Africa needs respected and healthy public broadcasters, not so that existing institutions can endure, but in the interests of the societies themselves.