The 1996 Spry
Memorial Lecture
Dr. Ruth Teer-Tomaselli (Centre
for Cultural and Media Studies, University of Natal, Durban, South Africa)
"The Public Broadcaster and Democracy in
Transformation" Montreal, 5 November 1996/Vancouver, 13 November 1996
THE PUBLIC BROADCASTER AND
DEMOCRACY IN TRANSFORMATION
Dr. Ruth Elizabeth Teer-Tomaselli
What is the purpose of
public service broadcasting? This simple question has been the subject of a great deal of
argument, debate and deliberation over the past seven years in South Africa, and indeed in
every country in which there has been a strong tradition of public broadcasting.
As a point of departure, I take the purpose of
public service broadcasting to be the provision of a universal service of excellent
programming, while maintaining public legitimacy through an editorial independence from
both the government of the day, and rampant commercial interests.
By 'universal' I mean programming which covers
a filll range of genres, from information to education and entertainment, for the widest
possible audience covering the most extensive geographical spread. There is only one
caveat to this definition: public service broadcasting must be carried out within the
means available to the public broadcaster. It is at this point, when the pragmatism of
limited financial means meets with the idealism of an all-encompassing mandate, that the
true contradiction of public service broadcasting in the late twentieth century becomes
apparent.
The projected budget for the South African
Broadcasting Corporation in the 1996-1997 fiscal year is in the order of R440 million,
which translates to roughly $110m (Canadian dollars). Let us compare that to some of the
agreements made this year alone, in one country - Germany:
MCA TV and the
commercial TV station RTL announced a 10 year $1,5 billion output deal for new and
existing MCA feature films and TV product.
MCA and the
KirchGroup entered into a pay-TV output deal for a duration of 10 years,valued at more
than $1 billion.
Columbia
Tristar and the KirchGroup completed a long term output agreement for a reported $1
billion, whick gives the KirchGroup rights to all motion pictures released by
Columbia after January 1 1996, and to substantial co-production agreements.
Viacom, parent
company of Paramount, and the KirchGroup signed an understanding which will give the
KirchGroup all free and pay-TV rights in German-speaking territories, some
continental rights for Paramount TV shows, access to Viacom's MTV Europe channels, a
block of Nickelodeon children's programming as well as an option to buy a 12% stake in
Telecino, the Spanish commercial TV station. Total value of the agreement is estimated in
excess of $1 billion.
Disney-ABC and
the KirchGroup announced a 10 year contract for Pay-TV and pay-per-view rights for Disney,
Hollywood Touchstone and Miramax output, valued at $1 billion.
Warner Brothers
and the KirchGroup completed a long-term contract for $800 million.
This, ladies and gentleman, is the broadcast
environment of the late 20th century. It is against this background, and the background of
severe financial cutbacks, together with rising expectations of what is required from
public service broadcasters, that we approach our subject matter tonight: the future and
transformation of public service broadcasting, and the process of democratic renewal.
Three questions seem appropriate:
1. What changes have taken place in the concept and practice of
public service broadcasting in the Spry Memorial Lecture 1996 movement from modernity
to post-modernity?
2. Do we need a public service media any longer? and
3. How do we ensure that such a medium fulfils the basic
conditions of public service broadcasting, in terms of both content and economic
sustainabilty.
Challenges Facing Public Service Broadcasting
Broadcasting entered the public arena in the
second half of the 1920s. In South Africa, radio stations were set up in Durban, Cape Town
and Johannesburg, all under private ownership, and by 1929, the companies were amalgamated
as the African Broadcasting Company. In 1934, the government of the Union of South Africa
commissioned the then Director General of the BBC, John Reith, to write a charter for a
national Public Broadcaster, and in 1936, the African Broadcasting Company became the
South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC).
Reith's vision of public service broadcasting
was an essentially modernist one. It incorporated the optimistic hope of rational
discourse and the firm belief in the edifying and uplifting potentials of broadcasting as
a conveyer of 'culture'. It was premised on the understanding that the broadcasting
spectrum is limited, and belongs to the nation. The government, while it may act as the
guardian of the nation-state, should be kept at arm's length from the day to day operation
of the broadcaster. Broadcasting, in this view, is a public good belonging to the whole
nation, not to be exploited for private or sectarian gain of either a monetary or
ideological kind.
The modernist vision of public service
broadcasting is the now 'classic' version of public service broadcasting. Alongside the
hope for rational discourse and belief in broadcasting's potential as a conveyor of
'culture', it is also indicative of colonial belief in upliftment. In the South African
case, this was despite the very limited view of who constituted 'the people' broadcasting
was to serve, an understanding which was confined to White, English speakers, and only
grudgingly extended to White Afrikaans speakers.(l)
Public broadcasting was premised on the
understanding that the broadcasting spectrum is limited, and belongs to the nation. The
government, while it may act as the guardian of the nation-state, should be kept at arm's
length from the day to day operation of the broadcaster. Broadcasting, in this view, is a
public good belonging to the whole nation, not to be exploited for private or sectarian
gain of either a monetary or ideological kind. Conceptually, the right place for the
broadcaster is the public sphere.(2)
From its inception, political and commercially powerfial sectors of
society expected public service broadcasting to accomplish an important democratic and
cultural mission. It was given the task of providing the entire population with
information, education and quality entertainment. For both economic and ideological
reasons, the tasks implied in this mandate could only be performed by a state regulated
monopoly -- i.e. public broadcasting services. This was the rationale which governed
public service broadcasting until the early 1980s. From that period, the global media
landscape underwent fundamental changes as almost all countries deregulated broadcasting.
National broadcasting systems were deregulated, or rather re-regulated, private providers
were admitted to the market and the state facilitated and promoted the development of the
technological infrastructure, and was occasionally involved in its operation.
In the time between John Reith and the present
much has changed. While the nation-state has been the terrain of public broadcasting, most
of the dynamics which plague broadcasting are of international import, and are the direct
result of the intervention of the global economic world order, which threatens to
undermine the very economic and political system under which public broadcasting presently
operates: the nation-state. It is my contention that most of these arise from the move
from modernity to post-modernity.
The Crisis of Post-Modernity
The main issues we can identify here can be summarised
under three strands:
1. the decline of the value of the nation-state as the primary
political and economic structure;
2. the issues involved in cultural identity, most notably the
rise of ethnic, religious, gender and 'life style' identities, which have overtaken the
previous pre-eminence of class as a determining factor in identity; and
3. the epistemological, ethical and political shifts in the way we think
about ourselves and our world.(3)
The project of modernity is
characterised by the ideal of rational thought, rooted in a notion of shared,
universal human rationality. On this basis it has been premised that open debate allowed
free agents to discuss and reach agreement on the end and means of politics - defined as
the achievement of human emancipation from the domination of nature, and poverty, on their
fellow human beings.
Post-modernists on the other
hand, argue that universal rationality and progressive politics is impossible in the face
of an inescapable cultural relativism. Post-modernism substitutes pleasure
and difference for reason and universality as
the pre-eminent categories of analysis.
In this view, western secular
rationalism is seen not only as one variant of cultural identity, but also as an
aggressive and imperialistic variant attempting to impose its false unity on the rich
diversity of cultural difference. What is the role of the mass media in this debate?
Two points are crucial:
1. rational debate within the public sphere -- the crucial
the the crucial underpinning of modernist politics -- is being challenged as an
on-going possibility; and
2. the media, so central to the theory of post-modernity,
are at the same time the crucial infrastructures, as well as the terrain, of economic and
cultural globalization.
Recent Trends in Media Industries
Throughout the world, media industries are
undergoing major changes both at the level of technology as well as at the level of
political economy. Expanding on the centrality of media in post-modernity, seven distinct,
but frequently overlapping tendencies in the development of modern media organizations are
evident.
a growing concentration of resources
within media industries, which occurs at the same time as the contrary process of
fracturing;
diversification, in which industries
based in one sector of the economy spread their investments,and their risks, not
only into horizontally and vertically integrated activities, but expanding into areas
which are traditionally outside their core business. At the same time, there is
evidence of a dialetical process of decentralisation and de-diversification, as
huge conglomerates disentangle their various components in the understanding that
economic efficiency demands meticulous attention to specific tasks;
globalization, set against the antithetical
processes of localisation and the rise of the politics of identity;
an international movement towards deregulation,
or rather re-regulation, through the opening of opportunities to new market entrants,
which has characterised the ideological perspective of the post-cold war era;
the growth of media technologies and
convergence which threatens the pre-eminence of the public broadcaster as the chief
articulator of the nation-state; the loss of legitimacy and credibility in the face of
rampant commercialisation and pandering to governments;
the increasing difficulty in remaining solvent
in the face of massive competition.
While each of these trends can be
supported by even the most cursory glance at the international literature, they are
clearly illustrated within the South African context as well (4).
I would like to concentrate on the issue of financial viability, since this is the crux of
much of the present dilemma facing public broadcasters world wide. Here I will illustrate
the arguments with reference to the South African case, but these principles do have wider
applicability.
Funding and the Public Broadcaster
The greatest crisis of public service
broadcasting is that as income diminishes, costs rise. This is a truism which is hardly
unique to public broadcasting. The basic difficulty with the SABC, and this is probably
instructive of many third world, 'developing' or 'south' broadcasters, is the
contradiction which ]ies between their public service mandate, and its access to public
funds. By public funds I mean those hmds paid directly or indirectly from the public in
the way of licence fees, along the same model used in Britain and France, the
understanding being that those who use the media gain 'ownership' of it through direct
subscription to it. This mechanism excludes money directly from the public treasury, which
in this instance, I refer to as 'state' funding. At present, the SABC receives no direct
funding from the state: 18% of its budget comes from licences; 78% from advertising; and
4% from sponsorship and commercial sales. Thus the SABC is a broadcaster with a public
mandate, but which operates in a commercial environment, under commercial constraints.
The problem in South Africa has been
exacerbated by the regulator -- the Independent Broadcasting Authority, or IBA -- which
has imposed a mandate, but only recommended a mechanism of funding, a distinction which
indicates the divide between the idealism of the public service mandate, and the prosaic
realm of economics. The mandate of a public service broadcaster can be extrapolated almost
indefinitely. It is an important exercise to stretch the corporate irnagination, and pose
the question: What if? What if resources were infinite and imagination the only
impediment, what could be done? In the real world, idealism must be tempered with
pragmatism, and 'what if?' translates to 'what can we, given the limitations of our
resources'... This is a hard lesson for public broadcasters, used as they are to a
birthright of largesse from the public purse.
Expenditure: Increasing the Public Service Mandate
Historically, the SABC played an important role
in both constructing and supporting the apartheid structures of the pre-1991 South Africa.
In the 1980s the SABC explicitly supported the then government in its effort to combat the
'Total Onslaught' of 'revoluhonary forces', seen to be spearheaded by the ANC in exile (5). With the general transformation of the South African
political imperatives, being the voice of the government was no longer an option: it was a
liability. From January 1991, under the leadership of Wynand Harmse, an accountant by
training and inclination, emphasis within the SABC moved from power to finance
as the dominant organizing principle. The SABC was reorganized into 'Business Units', each
with its own financial responsibility as a profit-generating entity (6). At the end of the 1991 financial year, the surplus
stood at 34 million rand; by the end of the 1995 financial year, it had increased to 101
million rand (7). Today, all things being equal with the
income level predicated on 1995 and the expenditure figures predicated on the mandate
agreed to with the IBA, the projected shortfall for the 1996-97 year is R56 million (8). How has this happened?
A New Mandate
After an extensive process of public
norninations and hearing, the election of the new Board of Directors of the SABC,
announced in May 1993, can be seen as the point heralding the 'new' broadcast environment.
In line with the social, economic and political changes taking place within the country as
a whole, the SABC was in the vanguard of visible change. To this end, much creative energy
was expended on negotiating a new 'Vision and Values' framework which would act as the
blueprint for the task of transforming a former state broadcaster into a finally
ledged public broadcaster. Summarized briefly, this vision was
a commitment to deliver full-spectrum services to all South Africans, in all parts of
the country, and in each of the eleven official languages. Their prograrnme content is
aimed at protecting and nurturing South African culture and creativity, and relecting the
reality of South Africa to itself and to the world from a distinctly South African
perspective (9).
The most visible evidence of the SABC's
new approach has been the reconfiguration of television channels. Television previously
served the interests of the middle classes only: predominantly White, 'coloured' and
Indian, with an increasingly large percentage of Black people falling into this category.
The aim of the 're-launch', which took place in
February 1996, was precisely to move closer to delivering public broadcasting by providing
more of the country's eleven official languages, as well as ensuring that the seven which
were already broadcast, were done so with greater equity.
The SABC television service has three channels
at its disposal: TVl, with the largest footprint, or signal distribution network,
broadcasts programming in SeTswana, SeSotho, Tsivenda; siNdebele, Xitsonga and Isiswati,
during peakhours, filling in the morning and afternoon schedules in a mixture of these
languages interspersed with English. Similarly, TV2, with a strong signal network in the
eastern part of the country, uses IsiXhosa, Zulu and Afrikaans during peak viewing time;
while TV3, the smallest signal footprint covering predominantly urban areas, broadcasts
only in English. The various languages are scheduled in 'blocks' in order to provide a
continutity for viewers: for example, on TV2, the main News bulletin on a Tuesday evening
will be in Zulu, preceded by a Zulu-language game show, and followed by a Zulu-language
drama. The predominance of English in the schedules is premised on the notion of English
as a 'core' language, understood as the second language choice of most South Africans, and
more practically, on the wide and inexpensive availabilty of English-language programming
on the international market.
While much of the transformation work was aimed
at television, in radio too, substantial changes needed to be implemented, most notably
the upgrading of the African language channels, and the extension and improvement of the
news division.
In order to put into effect such an ambitious plan, the mandate of the SABC was stretched
considerably. Among other projects, the following targets were aimed for:
extension of language services towards full
'equity' on television;
increase in local content programming;
extension of TV footprint to reach all
potential viewers;
introduction of regional television slots in
all provinces;
equity and universal access to religious
programming;
provision of curriculum based education on both
radio and television; and
upgrading of the African language radio
services.
Local content programming, particularly
when it includes a high proportion of drama, documentary and sport, is an enormously
expensive enterprise, as any national broadcaster worldwide will testify. Nevertheless, it
is essential to the project of protecting national identity and national culture, as well
as providing for the diverse language needs of the audience. It is worth noting that a
locally produced drama would cost as much as R15 000 a minute while a drama of the same
standard produced abroad, in English, would sell for as little as R600 a minute. Audiences
used to exogenous programming, in which the quality typically is very professional, are
not prepared to settle for inferior productions, simply on the grounds that they are
'local'. One way around this dilemma is the large-scale use of dubbing into a local
language. An added advantage is that the original imported soundtrack can be 'simulcast'
on another audio channel - either through the television set, or synchronised on radio.
Apart from the projects mentioned, there have
been a number of 'once off' (but periodically recurring) expenses, notably the coverage of
elections (national and regional) and voter education coverage of the truth and
reconciliation commission; the coverage of Parliamentary debates, and the like.
Greater financial liability has also been
imposed by the shrinking value of the Rand when measured against other currencies, notably
the American, Canadian and Australian dollar, as well as Pounds Sterling, the currencies
in which most programming and capital equipment is paid for. Decreased surplus reserves
have also meant a smaller amount of interest paid into the current account.
Currently, expected income of the Corporation
has been drastically cut. An important factor here has been the increasingly notable
'culture of non-payment' which has seen the television licence payment shrink to 18
percent of the viewing public (10). The main source of
revenue - advertising - has dropped substantially, both on radio and television. The
relaunching and reconfiguration of the television channels, with a new programming mix,
new formats and a more multi-cultural, multi-ethnic mix, clearly has played a part in the
reluctance of advertisers to buy broadcast space. However, television viewing and radio
watching are highly routine domestic habits, and any change, let alone a major change
across three of the country's four channels, will of itself result in substantial audience
reshufling before the new rhythms of the service are negotiated. (The fourth channel is
the pay-TV channel, M Net.)
To complicate matters, at the request of the
IBA, and in an attempt to 'deregulate' the airwaves, the SABC recently sold off six of its
regional radio stations, all of which had been run on commercial lines, and which had
generated sizable profits used to cross-subsidise the less profitable public service
stations. Together, the loss of revenue from the privatisation of these stations amounts
to R90 million per annum, calculated on the 1995 figures (11).
At the heart of the issue is that most
advertising spending goes to White, Coloured and Indian target markets, with advertisers
spending less on African language broadcasts, which are not seen as significant markets.
Despite the increased expenditure on extending, upgrading and generally improving the core
business of the radio division - the public service stations in African language - larger
audiences don't necessarily translate into revenue. Marketers have told the SABC that
until the size of the Black middle class has improved, they do not see lots of advertising
being dedicated to speakers of Black languages. This is also true of television
expenditure on the new Eastern African languages. The four new languages introduced into
the SABC Television schedule: Tsivenda; siNdebele, Xitsonga and Isiswafi, have not brought
any new revenue into the Corporation, nor is it envisaged that they will do so in the
foreseeable future.
Do We Need a Public Broadcaster?
The answer to this question is far from self-evident. The need for a
public broadcasting service has characteristically been justified on two grounds:
1. the protection of national idendity and culture; and
2. the provision of information, education and entertainment to
those sectors of society which are economically non-profitable.
National Identity
Social solidarity is reinforced when consumers
share the same cultural and informahonal environment. BBC founder John Reith, and those
who followed his school of thought, argued that this is best achieved when audiences
shared common cultural resources, and were subjected to a monopoly provider of a single
service.
Although the ideal of a universal
single-channel environment is now an anachronism, nation-building continues to be an
over-riding consideration, as is evidenced by the SABC's Guidelines for Programme Content:
In a multicultural society, the SABC needs to
ensure not only that the diversity is reflected, but that it is reflected positively....
Programmes should contribute to a sense of nation building and should not in any way
disparage the lifestyle or belief systems of any specific cultural group or in any way
attack the integrity of such a group, unless it is established to be in the public
interest. However, the news and beliefs of different groups are obviously open to honest,
thoughtful scrutiny in programmes like documentaries.(12)
The need for the consolidation of
national identity is keenly felt in developing countries, and the role of the mass media
rightly has been foregrounded in this debate. Media provide the self-image of a society.
In their now classic exposition of 'bardic television', John Fiske and John Hartley (13) note that
the bardic mediator occupies the centre of its culture: television is one of
the most highly centralized institutions in modern society. This is not only the result of
commercial monopoly or government control, it is also a response to the culture's felt
need for a common centre, to which the television message always refers. Its
centralization speaks to all members of a highly fragmented society.
In somewhat more colourful language,
Colin Morris, one-time documentary commissioner for the BBC, makes a similar point:
In the Book of Genesis, it is God who brings order out of chaos; in the modern world,
television journalists have to make a stab at doing it. They subdue into harmony a
mountain of telex printouts, miles of video tape and a pandemonium of ringing telephones.
They organize into a coherent picture, a riot of impressions, a chaos of events, a bedlam
of attitudes and opinions that would otherwise send us scurrying to the hills in panic.
And they have to construct this world view at lightning speed, in a welter of instant
judgements. Not for them the luxury afforded to philosophers of earlier ages who could
reflect at leisure on the fitness of things. Aristotle had no six o'clock deadline to
meet.(14)
Third world countries, particularly
those in Africa, have taken nation-building most seriously. A leading African
intellectual, Paul Ansah (1981) of the University of Ghana, put it this way:
[T]he press in a developing country is expected to help forge a sense of national
unity, identity and integration and to mobilise the people for development. Many leaders
in developing countries also consider that it is their responsibility to provide
information to citizens as a social service in the same way as they provide other services
such as educational, health and recreational facilities.
African governments find it necessary to control broadcasting operations in order to
promote national unity, socio-economic development and stability. It is felt that if
control is not exercised, there is a danger of the system falling into the hands of
wealthy people who could use it to promote commercial, sectional or political interests
that may be at variance with national objectives.
These sentiments have been echoed
throughout Africa. Nahum Gorelick (15), one-time
Director-General of the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation, made a similar statement:
In Third World countries, the power of radio and television must be considered as an
effective tool for change and development. There is no doubt that governments in their
attempt to implement policies of development, which can be considered as a national
priority, depend to a great extent on radio and television communication. The fact is, if
there is no development and no participation by the people in this developmental effort,
we are then condemned to face conflicts within our society.
The line of thought which foregrounds
the media as watchdog and critics does not go down well with African governments. In many
cases, building nationalism is articulated as the unconditional and uncritical adherence
to political - often party-political - orthodoxy. John Tusa (16)
has expressed the opinion that in many African countries,
governments feel weak rather than strong, threatened by tribal [and ethnic] rivalries,
economic failure, ideological disputes, religious tensions. In such an atmosphere, the
response has been to demand of the journalist/broadcaster in Africa that they should ...
bind the nation together, and that criticism, dissent, investigation, all the customary
activities of the media should take second place to the primary need of national unity.
Tusa's response is indicative of most
western-based commentators. He articulates the demand for control as one of "two
different codes of journalistic ethics ... a higher standard of editorial standards for
the developed world and a looser discipline for the developing nations." Such double
standards are unacceptable, they are "patronising on the part of the West, defeatist
on the side of the Third World."
However, Tusa's riposte misses the point: while
he is correct that control of the media "is a disservice to those who look to the
media for a true picture of events, and it is harmfill to the democratic process", in
his rebuttal he evidences a clash of values between western, liberal values
(laissez-faire) and normative /developmental ethics. While he is absolutely correct that
a free press is the mark of a confident nation; an accurate press is the sign of a
mature people; a press which can criticise governments temperately and governments which
react rationally to such criticism, are evidence of a civilised state.(17)
This position is not incompatible with
an understanding of the hugely significant role the media are able to play in producing
social goods such as health education, civic literacy, and pro-social messages. Not all
nation building necessarily promotes sectarian political positions. Indeed, when the
electronic media is used in a top-down fashion, uncritically mouthing the voice of the
government or party, they become instruments of oppression losing their credibility as the
aspirations of the people changed with regard to political, cultural, social and economic
desires. In effect, they lose their effectiveness.
Universal Provision of Programming
Questions around the universal provision of
information, education and entertainment are more compelling. The MacBride report on the
New World Information Order (18) stressed the
understanding of cultural rights as human rights. Culture, education and the provision of
information were seen as basic human rights, alongside and equal to, the material rights
of food, water, health and housing. These informational 'needs' have to be provided as
social goods - and not simply as commercial commodihes. This debate has been revived by
the recent publication of the UNESCO report (19) Our
Cultural Diversity which stresses the intimate connection between culture and
development.
Arguing for the protection of
culturally, educationally and socially valued broadcasting, or what Jay Blumler (20) has eloquently referred to as 'vulnerable values', is
not the same as distinguishing between needs and wants. Put in those terms, 'wants' are
thought of as the legitimate desires of the audiences, signalled through the two
mechanisms of audience research -- i.e. ratings which signal audience preferences
and appreciation indices, and measure off the intensity of those preferences-- the
market --i.e. consumer support for encrypted or encoded channels. In the same
framework, 'needs' are envisaged as the paternalistic response of whose who know best -- a
top-down approach compared to the more participatory approach of 'wants' (21).
The argument I am putting forward is one which
recognises the asymmetric distribution of power with respect to different audience
segments and their ability to signal wants and needs. A broadcasting policy based only on
the perceived wants of those who are in a position to articulate them through
market-driven responses, to quote Richard Collins, "will necessarily neglect large
areas of legitimate needs, and will reproduce and perhaps amplify existing inequalities in
wealth and power."(22) In other words, legitimate
needs cannot be determined by an exogeneous process decided outside the expressed wants of
the audience.
Driven by a purely commercial logic, it is not
possible to ensure that a rich diversity of programrning is available to audiences who are
not considered to be profitable. In this respect, there is a temptation for commercial
media to be less concerned with wide public access than they are with profit. For the
purposes of commercial broadcasters, universality is not important: what is important is
to cater for a critical mass of well defined audience segments with the wherewithal to
purchase specific categories of products. Audiences perceived to fall outside of the
parameters of consumers, or who are too expensive to reach, are not catered for. As a
commercially driven public service broadcaster, the SABC is very prone to a schizophrenic
sense of its own direction.
Audiences can be excluded from universal
coverage for at least three reasons:
1. They are too poor, and poor people make poor consumers, both of the
media itself and the products it advertises. The consumption of printed media is a case in
point: when a daily newspaper is an equivalent price to a daily loaf of bread,
the choice is clear.
2. They are too geographically dispersed. Newspapers are poorly distributed in
rural areas, since the cost of transport and distribution cannot be recovered by the cover
price. Broadcasting over long distances has traditionally required heavy investment
in cabling, microwave relay stations, receivers and boosters. Television, furthermore,
requires a pre-existing electricity grid. In commercial terms, the outlay of
such an infrastructure may not be compensated for by the expected return in audience
numbers, particularly when the rural areas are sparsely populated. The greater the density
of population, the higher the marginal return on infrastructural investment.
3. They are too linguistically or culturally diverse. Catering for the
information and entertainment needs of small pockets of distinct language speakers is
costly, with a very low marginal rate of return on the numbers of viewers and
listeners reached. This is particularly true of television, where original
programming is very expensive. While the cheaper options of dubbing or subtitling existing
programming is still expensive, such programming may not be acceptable to the audience.
(This is particularly true of drama programming, while news, sports and actuality
programming finds greater acceptance in translation.)
The range of programming is also limited by commercial considerations.
Nicholas Garnham (23) has pointed out that
"what we are in fact being offered is not cultural interchange in the electronic
sphere, but on the contrary the expansion of price and profit, of commodity exchange, as
the dominating mode of organization in yet another area of cultural production
and consumption."
There is enormous competition to provide
information goods to those who can pay for them, or those whose economic status defines
them as attractive audiences to advertisers. This affects the ability of the public
broadcaster to provide some categories of programming which may be seen to be in the
public interest. The classic issues of programming for the very young; curriculum-based
education; the elderly and disabled, including close-caption broadcasting or sign-language
inserts for the deaf; as well as minority language and cultural groups; readily come to
mind here. But broadcasting is big business commanding big capital outlay, and nowhere is
this more evident than the question of sports nghts. When these rights involve national
teams, they are seen by many as a national asset and not only as a right of the privileged
few who are able to access them through superior buying power.
Can Public Service Broadcasting Survive?
From the arguments weighed above it seems
reasonable to argue that if public service broadcasting is to survive, it will not be the
same sort of public sector broadcasting we have defined in classical terms.
It is no longer possible to envisage a national
public broadcaster which can be all things to all people, fulfilling all functions of
broadcasting in the old style of its monolithic dominance. Neither financially, nor
ideologically is it possible to present a single monopoly broadcaster, integrated across
all broadcasting functions.
If we are to find a space in which the public
broadcaster is able not only to survive, but to thrive, then we need to be able to place
it within a matrix of broadcasting alternatives, which takes account of the
reality of new technologies, commercial competition and the changing milieu of post-modern
nationalisms.
TABLE ONE: SCHEMATIC VIEW OF BROADCAST ENVIRONMENT
Thus instead of speaking of a national public service broadcaster, we need to be
able to speak of a broadcasting environment, into which the public service
broadcaster must fit. The whole of this environment will then be a flexible entiy of
interlocking parts, in which co-ordination, rather than centralization, will be the
chief organising principle. In order to envisage how this can be achieved, it is usefiul
to break up the broadcast environment into its discrete parts, at least on an analytic
basis (see Table One). The categories I have chosen, in a fairly arbitrary way, are those
of producer/ programme supplier; broadcaster /scheduler; and distributor.
If we take as our point of departure that the
broadcast environment should be judged by two criteria on the one hand, whether it
facilitates the development of pluralistic media, ie. provides consumers with the widest
set of relevant and really useful choices; and whether it fosters the eficient use of
resources, then it makes sense to argue that a public broadcaster will need to identify
those areas of 'core competence' which must be filled as social goods, but which are being
neglected by the for-profit-broadcasters. At the same time, it will also identify those
areas of broadcasting which are profitable, and which can usefiully be exploited to
provide the funding leverage to cross-subsidise the less profitable, but socially
necessary. Thus the SABC plans to have a part share in the satellite venture, ASTRASAT,
which will be run as a purely commercial venture in order to produce profits, with the
sole purpose of generating monies to cross-subsidise the less profitable, but socially
necessary, terrestrial services.
Part of this process is in effect already
happening. The use of outside production companies for the commissioning and production of
programming is now an accepted practice. The SABC retains its in house production
facilities, notably TopSport, Television News Productions, and Safritel (responsible for
the production of continuity, educational and children's programming) as well as studio
and editing infrastructure, and as a result, when it embarks on a local production, it
enlists the services of outside production houses. According to M-Net, the local film and
television industry benefits from this practice, as the commissioning to outside companies
creates work, income and investor confidence in the industry, which in turn promotes
prosperity. M-Net also asserts that the commissioning of productions to outside companies
contributes "towards a vibrant and dynamic range of creative input that encourages
growth, diversity and healthy competition within the industry" (24).
At a structural level, the disaggregation, or
in South African parlance, the 'unbundling', of media organizations is already apparent
with the separation of Sentech (the signal distribution arm ofthe SABC) from the direct
control of the SABC, a move which will be formalised with the passing of the Sentech Act
now before Parliament; and the split between MultiChoice and M-Net. Both these moves were
done for very strategic reasons. Outside the direct line of ownership of the SABC, Sentech
would be able to canvas further transactions from other broadcasters, as well as targeting
the business community, to whom they would be able to offer new distribution services, for
example satellite technology to provide training and tele-conferencing facilities,
in-house radio services and the like, in a more legitimate way, a very necessary
consideration in the light of the deregulation and proliferation of broadcast
organizations.
In October 1993 Multi-Choice (now Multi-Choice
International Holdings [MIH]) and M-Net separated into two business units. After the
restructuring, M-Net retained the role of domestic broadcaster / scheduler, and as a
provider of subscription TV in Africa and the adjacent islands; while Multi-Choice
fimctioned as a distribution network, with control of the Subscriber Management Services
(SMS) and Communications Technologies (ComTech) divisions, as well as technology and
programme distribution in Africa and Europe. Multi-Choice (MIH) provides subscriber
management services to households subscribing to M-Net, BBC World Service TV, Canal
Horizons, TV Portuguesa, Christian Network, Shalom TV, and Bop TV.2s
It has been suggested that part of the reason behind the split was that in the light of
a new political dispensation and investigations by the IBA into broadcasting, ... M-Net's
diversification into MultiChoice allows the company to function as a commercial company,
not subject to the social obligations that might be imposed on M-Net as a broadcaster. In
other words the IBA has little legal recourse over a financial, management company which
is the nature of MultiChoice.(26)
Bypassing the regulation of the IBA over the international
operation, MIH has greater accessibility to the international capital market.
How Can Public Service Broadcasting Survive?
If, as I have argued, it is desirable that
public service broadcasting should survive, and if at the same time it is faced with what
appear to be insoluble odds against it, then there needs to be a protected space within
the broadcasting environment for this type of service. This is true both of the national
public broadcaster, and community broadcasting with a public mandate. This protection
would take place within an awareness of the need for a wider range of broadcasting
services. What I am suggesting here, is that we move to a situation which John Keane (27) has referred to as 'regulated pluralism'. This needs
to be done in such a way that the integrity and independence of the broadcaster is not
compromised. It is the job of the state to provide the regulation environment -- but it is
the job of the media institutions to fillfil their mandates.
The role of the regulator is of primary
importance here. The regulator is essential in three specific areas: the allocation of
spectrum; the safeguarding of financial viability of the public broadcaster; and the
adjudication of ground rules which must be the same for all players (ie. not possible to
put PSB at a disadvantage vis-a-vis for-profit-broadcasters). In a purely market-driven
environment -- exemplified, for instance, by the United States of America -- the broadcast
spectrum, treated purely as a commodity, will be sold off.
Convergence and globalization mean that
we need to construct a national communications/ information plan which will co-ordinate
the efforts and enterprises of various information-based activities at the national level.
At the same time, it is important to understand that within the age of globalization, it
is no longer possible for a national regulator to regulate broadcasting or communications
entirely: any attempt at regulation must take into consideration the fact that satellites
understand no boundaries. Thus a national regulator must acknowledge its limitations -- it
needs to be flexible and dynamic, while at the same time able to take cognisance of
changing external circumstances.
The greatest challenge for both public
service broadcasters -- whether national or community -- as well as for the regulator, is
the vexed question of financing. This question deserves an entire paper on its own, but it
is not a question which can be ignored indefinitely. There is a Nigerian proverb which
sums up the dilemma of public broadcasting most aptly, by comparing it to a communally
owned goat, the pride of the village. If everyone claims ownership of the goat but no one
feeds it, then the goat will die. It would be a great pity to see public broadcasting
starve to death because no one was responsible for feeding it.
NOTES:
(1) One of the most important indicators of the difficulties inherent
in fulfilling the public service mandate has been in the provision of universal
service. Both in terms of complete geographic coverage of the country, as well as in
terms of programme type and language, universal service largely has been a myth. In the
case of South Africa, for instance, the issue of language on radio must serve as
exemplary. Reith's understanding of 'the people' was confined to those people who spoke
English, and in this vein, initially only English language radio was set up. By the late
1930s, an hour of Afrikaans was introduced, becoming a separate, but not equal station in
the 1940s, aptly labelled the "B service". In similar fashion, 'Bantu language'
radio programmes were introduced in the 1950s. With the technical advances made possible
by the introduction of FM, the now infamous 'Radio Bantu' became a set of fully-fledged
array of stahons mirroring and contributing to the apartheid grand narrative of separate
nations, speaking separate languages, and living in separate areas of the country (cf
Tomaselli & Tomaselli 1987).
(2) Habermas, 1989; Calhoun, 1992; Garnham, 1993; Thompson, 1993.
(3) Thompson, 1995; Keane, 1996; Teer-Tomaselli & Tomaselli, 1996.
(4) Tomaselli, 1996.
(5) Teer-Tomaselli, 1993.
(6) Curry, 1993: 48-49; Collins, 1993: 87.
(7) SABC Annual Report, 1995: 50.
(8) Evening Post, 16 August 1996.
(9) SABC, 1996a: 2.
(10) Argus, 16 August 1996.
(11) The Star, 23 September 1996.
(12) SABC, 1996b:
(13) Fiske & Hartley, 1978: 86.
(14) Quoted in Tusa, 1992.
(15) Gorelick, 1992.
(16) Tusa, 1992: 5.
(17) Tusa, 1992: 5.
(18) UNESCO, 1980.
(19) UNESCO, 1996: 24.
(20) Blumler, 1992.
(21) White, 1984
(22) Collins, 1993: 29
(23) Garnham, 1990: 121.
(24) Tager & Govender, 1994 :4.
(25) MultiChoice Annual Report, 1994.
(26) Tager & Govender, 1994.
(27) Keane, 1991.
WORKS CITED:
Blumler, J., ed. (1992) Television and the Public Interest:
Vulnerable Values in West European Broadcasting. Sage: London.
Browning, J. (1994) "Universal Access, not Universal
Service", Wall Street Journal, 7 September.
Calabrese, A. and Borchert, M. (1996) "Prospects for
Electronic Democracy in the USA", Media, Culture and Society 18(2):
246-268. , Calhoun, C, ed. (1992) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press.
Collins, R. (1993) "Reforming South African
Broadcasting", in E. P. Louw (ed) South African Media Policy: Debates of
the 1990's. Belville: Anthropos.
Garnham, N. (1990) Capitalism and Communication: Global
Culture and the Economics of Information. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications
Garnham, N. (1993) "Mass Media, Cultural Identity, and the Public
Sphere in the Modern World", Public Culture 5:251-265.
Gorelick, N. (1991) "The Electoral Process in Namibia -
Building Confidence through Broadcasting' Combroad, London 23-27.
Griffiths, E. (1996) One Team, One Country. Johannesburg:
Penguin Books.
Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public
Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Sociey. T. Burger & F.
Lawrence, transl. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Keane, J. (1991) The Media and Democray. Cambridge:
Polity Presse
Keane, J. (1996) 'Structural Transformation in the Public Sphere",
in M. Brun-Andersen, Media and Democray. Oslo: University of Oslo
Press.
South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). (1995) SABC Annual
Report, 1995. Johannesburg: SABC.
SABC. (1996a) Launch SABC Television: Commemorative Publication on
the Relaunch of the SABC's Television Channels. Johannesburg: SABC.
SABC. (1996b) SABC Television Division, Guidelines for Programme
Content. Johannesburg: SABC.
Tager, M. & K. Govender. (1994) "'M-Net: Baby Steps to Big Foot
Status". Durban: Unpublished research paper, Centre for Cultural and Media Studies,
University of Natal.
Teer-Tomaselli, R. E. & K. G. Tomaselli. (1996) "Reconstituting
Public Service Broadcasting: Media and Democracy during Transition in South
Africa", in M. Brun-Andersen, Media and Democracy. Oslo: University of Oslo
Press.
Thompson, J. B. (1993) "The Theory of the Public Sphere", Theory,
Culture and Society 10:173-189.
Thompson, J. B. (1995) The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of
the Media. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Tomaselli, K G, R. E. Tomaselli & J. Muller, eds. (1987) The
Press in South Africa. Belville: Anthropos.
Tusa, J. (1992) "Fourth Estate or Fifth Column? Media, the
Government and the State". Paper presented at ComBroad Commonwealth Broadcasting
Association, March 1992.
UNESCO. (1980) Many Voices, One World. Report of the
International Commission on the Problems of Communication. S. MacBride, chair. Paris:
UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO. (1996) Our Creative Diversity: Report of the World Commission
on Culture and Development. Paris:UNESCO Publishing.
White, R. A. (1984) Democratisation of
Communication: The Need for New Research Strategies. London: Centre for the Study of
Comrnunication and Culture.
White, R. A. (1991)
"Democratization in Communication: Normative Theory and Sociopolitical Process",
in K Greenberg (ed) Conversations in Communications Ethics. Norwood, NJ.:
Ablex Publishing, pp. 141-164.
Top of the page
Main page