Tread carefully on SABC funding

April 17th, 2008

Government funding for the SABC could be a boon to public broadcasting. Or it could be a total disaster, depending on how it is done.

The ANC’s call at its Polokwane conference for more state funding for the monolith of South African broadcasting is not the first time the party has made this proposal. But this time it might be taken seriously, as there appears now to be a determination to see at least some of the more controversial conference proposals implemented.

The resolution asked for government funding to go from its current token 2% to a substantial 60%. With SABC revenue at just under R4-billion in the last financial year, this represents no small amount of money. This might explain why the Treasury has in previous years studiously ignored such calls.

The primary motivation for dipping into the public purse is to cure, or at least treat, the SABC’s split personality.

At the moment, it is a public broadcaster with very serious public obligations which have to be constantly balanced, even compromised, by the need to raise advertising. At every level of the organisation, there is a daily tug-of-war between commercial and public service interests, and it is the former which usually wins out. The advocates of greater state funding want to shift the balance.

Government funding should allow more content which is not always financially self-sustaining yet is appropriate to a public broadcaster, such as drama in some of the smaller national languages, or information and educational programming, or greater investment in quality current affairs.

A secondary motivation, though not one to raise its head at the ANC conference, is a desire to open the way for other broadcasters, and promote greater diversity. If the SABC takes less of the advertising pot, this should provide new opportunities for other media and make the market more competitive.

But the dangers are immense. For one thing, direct government funding could give politicians a stranglehold on the institution. A government which can give and take away budgets is one that has too much control. If government funding is to assist the broadcaster, then it will have to be done at arm’s length.

Current experience is that parliament does not provide the necessary distance from the executive. After all, it has emerged that when parliament last year had to appoint a new SABC board, ANC MPs took direct instructions from the presidency.

It should also be long-term funding so that it is not subject to annual manipulation, which could make the broadcaster dependant on the whim of the government. It would need to go through a third party, an independent body of the good and the great, to lessen the chances of political pressure.

It might also be more effective to offer the funding to any broadcaster which does public service work, meaning that other channels could also apply for support for non-profit work, or perhaps even the producers of such work could get the grant, and then take it to the most appropriate outlet.

While there is already some of this funding for film and video-makers, it is relatively small. Why not increase these grants, rather than offer a handout to the country’s most powerful media institution?

A second danger is that funding may make the SABC less interested in its audiences. Currently, its survival is dependent on its capacity to attract eyeballs in a competitive media market. This tends to focus the mind. Take this away, and you are in danger of encouraging dull, boring, pompous programming – the kind that politicians like and audiences flee from.

And one must ask where the figure of 60% comes from? If the SABC is to continue with some advertising, a grant may give it an unfair competitive advantage. It could use the grant to undercut advertising rates, for example, since it will have sources of revenue which private broadcasters do not have.

The SABC has been radically restructured in recent years. It has become corporatised and now pays taxes (it paid about R163-m in 2006, making the government a net gainer from the institution). It declared a pre-tax profit of some R500-m in 2006 and has substantial cash reserves.

It has also been divided into commercial and public service divisions. How does one ensure that it is only the public service side that gets the benefit?

The issue of state funding is a complex one. It needs careful consideration if it is to have the desired effect.

*This column first appeared in Business Day, 24 January 2008

Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, Radio, TV