Defenders of the Koni Media bid for Johncom are trying to discredit the detractors.
Former government spokesperson Onkgopotse JJ Tabane believes the critics are racially opposed to black empowerment.
Others argue that the concerns are groundless:
– Koni Media says it will respect the editorial independence of the Sunday Times and sister Johncom papers, because its bid is purely Âbusiness driven.
– President Thabo Mbeki says that the fuss is fabricating a ‘scarecrow†because the government-linked shareholders only have minuscule holdings in Koni.
But politically linked investment in newspapers, on whatever scale, is not like BEE money going into mining. Newspapers are not about excavating inert minerals destined for China. They deal in ideas, news and public agendas at home.
Dumbest question of the year: if Koni Media won control of the Sunday Times, would government persist with the proposal to punish the paper with an advertising boycott?
The point is that politics constitutes the driving force behind the current suitors. And this applies equally to Tokyo Sexwale, also seeking a chunk of Johncom.
So what is wrong with politically motivated black South Africans owning major titles, especially if the other media groups are foreign owned (Independent News & Media), Afrikaner owned (Media24), or generally white owned (Caxton)?
The answer, as expressed by the South African National Editors Forum, is that political ownership by anyone is not good for democracy.
Naturally, everyone in politics would like media influence. But to fully function as an institution in democratic governance, the fourth estate should stay separate from the state.
Already, there’s the impression that too much journalism is embroiled in dirty politics, wittingly or unwittingly publishing leaks to discredit one force or another.
Less so in broadcasting, where historically political office bearers have been excluded from licences. The rationale is that broadcast frequencies are limited, so licensees should therefore be impartial public fora — a media service that intrinsically clashes with the interests of political players.
Though there is no rationale for licensing newspapers, some safeguards are possible. Among these are requirements for state employees to disclose and limit any involvement in the private sector at large — any media assets included.
In a democracy, public employees, akin to MPs, should never have a conflict of interests between public imperatives and private and/or party ownership-based interests.
Accordingly, from Korea to Canada, there are elaborate systems for government and civil servants to either sell significant business assets, or place them in a ‘blind trustâ€.
This arrangement means putting assets temporarily under independent management, with the owner ‘blind†to any decisions taken. The rationale is to prevent partisan exploitation of state resources for political or business ends.
The same system can apply to the ethics of those aspiring to state positions. If Sexwale wants to chose politics over business, he could set the tone by putting his assets into a blind trust.
Outside the group of contenders for state power there are many other BEE forces that can promote media transformation without allegiance to political people. In that way, newspapers can more easily serve the broad public interests of readers — rather than the narrower political interests of party and government.
Guy Berger is professor of media studies at Rhodes ÂUniversity
What do the editors say?
The Mail & Guardian asked three newspaper editors what their take is on Koni Media’s bid for Johncom, whether government officials and politicians should own media companies and how editorial independence could be safeguarded.
Moegsien Williams, The Star
In media, we tend to cry wolf at the slightest provocation. Eventually, when we do raise the alarm — for instance, in the case of a real threat to press freedom — the public will not believe or take us seriously.
Regarding the possible purchase of Johncom, I have no problem with a straight business deal that will, among other things, guarantee the editorial independence of editors and newspaper titles.
One would assume the investors in Koni Media have done their sums and see a decent return on their possible investment. A general positive for the South African media, should the Koni Media bid be successful, would be a wider spread of ownership.
Politicians who buy newspapers for political reasons are either stupid or have unusually deep pockets. Surely Ronnie Mamoepa and Company are mere investors in Koni Media and not sufficiently wealthy to own newspapers outright?
The greatest asset of an established, profitable and viable newspaper is its credibility. A board of directors of such a newspaper that meddles in its editorial content should be considered reckless with investors’ money and be turfed out.
A prerequisite [for editorial independence] is fearless, principled and hard-nosed editors able to stand their ground regardless of the pressure applied. A charter on editorial independence, as signed by Rupert Murdoch recently in his purchase of the Wall Street Journal, could be a useful firewall.
At Independent, the editor’s letter of appointment contains a clause that gives the editor complete and final say on policy and content (including advertising content) and guarantees no interference.
Tim du Plessis, Rapport
The most eloquent comment came from Andrew Donaldson [a Sunday Times columnist] who renamed Koni Media ‘Kroni Mediaâ€.
The bid is disquieting and what is worse is how people, including President Thabo Mbeki, try to justify it by saying the government officials involved don’t even own 1% of the company [the M&G reported last week that Ronnie Mamoepa, Titus Mafolo and Billy Modise together own 30% of Koni Media].
At Media24 management doesn’t even own 1% of the company’s shares, but they have huge influence in how things are done. If they [Mamoepa, Mafolo and Modise] become directors or managers [of Johncom] they will have enormous say.
In principle, I am also uncomfortable about Tokyo Sexwale owning 30% of Johncom. He too is a man with political aspirations who bought his shares after announcing his presidential ambitions.
What softens his bid is his company’s commitment to issuing a charter of editorial independence.
But remember that a charter is like a constitution — it only works if there is the political will to make it work. Given the Sunday Times‘s independent stance, I cannot think that Mbeki’s friends would lend that much money to not change the newspaper’s approach.
There are already Sunday newspapers that write what the Mbeki administration wants them to, but their circulations are between 40 000 and 200 000 and the Sunday Times is 500 000. What does that tell you about the market?
They [Koni Media] can do what they want — it won’t change what the buyers on the streets want.
Andrew Trench, deputy editor, Daily Dispatch
I’m more pragmatic than most of my colleagues about government or politicians owning media companies.
I’m not necessarily comfortable with it, but the mere fact that it exists does not make me panic. The real issue is how their involvement in a group’s ownership would influence the day-to-day operations. That is of concern to me.
Safeguards like an editorial charter is one way of doing it, but sitting on their side of the fence, they might be offended. ‘Why was it not done with the existing owners?†they could ask.
But there is also another way of guaranteeing editorial independence. Here is a company worth about R5-billion [Johncom]. Lots of people invested money in the business. It would be foolish not to keep the business as successful as it is.
To lose credibility would be commercial suicide. — Adriaan Basson