SOUTH AFRICA has a history of stifling criticism, squashing dissent and suppressing those who do not fit into a narrow concept of society. It is a legacy, both of colonialism and the bizarre system created under National Party rule. Declaiming about political economy as Jane Duncan does, (
Business Day 29 January 2008) or simply positioning oneself within an intellectual theory, one of many which seem to describe the role of the media, cannot undo this legacy.
In fact we run the risk of assuming freedom is the result of theory, and not simply struggle. However, as much as we have been silenced, South African’s have resisted censorship and attempts to clamp down on freedom of expression. It would be wonderful if we could say, without any sense of irony, that our society's greatest achievement is its ability to absorb criticism. Unfortunately in today’s global order, the achievements of our freedom struggle have been diminished by the transnational machinations of corporate mergers, media consolidations, the creation of new elites, party politics and the misguided attempt by our government to intervene in the production of content.
Duncan is correct in distinguishing three media groupings in South Africa and proposing legislation that would restrict the ability of these entities to own or control more than a certain percentage of the market. Unfortunately a 30% rule would merely serve to even out the market between the top three players.
May I be so bold to suggest the following corrective surgery in the light of the inability of corporate media, such as Media24 to absorb criticism? The group recently refused to publish a story about a black jazz musician on the basis that the article did not conform to a "coloured" target market. It has further refused to engage with the TRC in anything more than lip-service and with a near stranglehold on the local magazine publishing, printing and distribution sector, Media24 clearly needs to be broken up into smaller units that may compete with each other in the marketplace of ideas.
Stronger and more effective laws on the cross-ownership of media are further needed to prevent any single company from owning a monopoly or cartel and stifling criticism. It is not just Media24 which has silenced its critics. The Independent Group is a prime example of the result of unbridled access to capital and the accumulation of profits that have come at the detriment of press freedom and intellectual inquiry.The company is known for having a ready stock of commentators who deliver opinions, but only within the narrow confines determined by Dublin and the Washington Consensus.
Independent has gone so far as to give sponsor representation at boardroom level, creating an unfair relationship with advertising companies and public relations firms through its interests in Clear Channel, a company accused of crony capitalism in its dealings with the Bush Family.
Avusa, despite being the smallest kid on the block, is no better off and has simply imitated the cross-ownership strategies deployed by Independent and Media24 while supporting the present dispensation in which the Press Ombud exists without reference to articles 15, 18 and 19 governing freedom of opinion, association and political choices, with the resulting decline in freedom of expression. We are fast approaching a period of self-censorship, in which journalists are afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs.
Until the major media houses come clean on their role in the brainwashing, censorship, and enforcement of discrimination, (all still part and parcel of the apartheid legacy,) while instituting corrective action such as labour policies that do not discriminate on the basis of race, class or creed, criticism such as this will continue to be leveled. How can we rectify the media system without destroying press freedom even further? How do we move forward without perpetuating the apartheid legacy, or damaging a fragile democracy that has slowly emerged out of the struggle for press freedom?
Funding media diversity merely serves to patch the system in a piecemeal process in which the greatest impediments to diversity are the lack of infrastructure, access to low-cost printing and distribution -- 50% of the population are still effectively excluded from the organs of media production because of the legacy of apartheid.
Instead of passing laws here and there, we need corrective surgery that will tackle the economics that make quality media and a media that is affordable, critical, outspoken and free-thinking. To date, there is little outlet for debate, new ideas, life experiences, except over the Internet. Unless South Africa dramatically increases bandwidth and lowers the cost of entry, such expression will continue to be seen as elitist and unaffordable.
Regardless of the policies of the government of the day, the prerogative of struggle is freedom. It is not something one sacrifices without a fight -- we should therefore stop looking towards our politicians for all the answers, learn to challenge corporate hegemony and remember George Orwell when he said: Freedom of the press all too often becomes freedom for those who own the presses.
