ANC’s newspaper plans
July 11th, 2008
The Times this morning leaks an ANC document outlining its ideas to acquire or launch a national daily newspaper before the elections in April next year. It makes for intriguing reading, especially as one is left wondering if these are loose ideas, plans or just plain fantasies.
The document suggests they may seek to take over the Sowetan newspaper, either by buying it or entering into a partnership with owners Avusa, which is or will shortly be controlled by ANC heavyweight businessman Tokyo Sexwale. Alternatively, they look to launch a new daily. The amount of money being bandied around is R250-m and there is a promise that an unnamed overseas investor is ready with R75-m to put in. Another potential friendly investor is named as HCI, owners of eTV and Yfm.
I have come to believe that an ANC newspaper would be a very good thing. The ANC is entitled to their own party voice, and it might help us keep informed of the ruling party’s thinking.
Taking over the Sowetan, however, may be far-fetched. I cannot see Avusa letting it go except for a very high price. And they are unlikely to want to be involved themselves in turning it into a party newspaper, only to get caught in the no-win situation of balancing their reader and market needs with those of the political party. That is a losing formula.
Starting a new newspaper will be tough, risky and expensive. Our market is small and crowded, with some very powerful, established products and companies. I can only hope that the ANC is realistic about the prospects. If they think they can compete in the open market with papers like the Daily Sun, Sowetan or Star, then they are doomed to failure. Those papers have large printing, distribution and editorial machines behind them, established market places and a flexibility in dealing with the marketplace. A party-political paper will have none of that.
It would be much more sensible to think of a weekly paper, which people may add to their current reading in order to get a distinct ANC perspective, rather than believe such a paper can cater for people’s needs and wants the way the commercial papers can.
Party newspapers by their nature do not produce great journalism. They seldom break news about their own party and their attacks on other parties will lack credibility. We have seen many party newspapers in South Africa - from the Afrikaans press until 1990 to Ilanga today, which is Inkatha-controlled. Very often their need to avoid difficult stories, publish half-truths or defend the indefensible leads them into a kind of anti-journalism, the purpose of which is not to reveal, expose, examine and explain but to hide, conceal or explain away.
This does not mean they do not serve a useful purpose. I, for one, will read such a newspaper avidly to try and learn more about our ruling party and its thinking. I will read it sceptically, but I hope we do that with all news media.
Watching such a newspaper would be intriguing. How does it deal with the inevitable conflicts and disagreements in the party? How does it stay interesting if it has to stick to the line that there is no internal conflict? How does it deal with the flood of party officials who want coverage and who are never happy with the coverage they get?
All newspapers face difficulties and conflicts when they cover their owners and often have to declare their conflict of interests. But if you are owned by the ruling party, you will face this in almost every story, picture, headline and caption.
Not an easy thing to do - and still be interesting to your readers.
And we will have to watch carefully that it is not improperly subsidised through, for example, government advertising. And where will they get the finance? The only motivation anyone can have for throwing large amounts of money at such a venture is to gain political favour, and foreign interests in particular need to be treated as suspect. What influence are they buying and why, we will need to ask. Truth is that the only proper way to do this is to fund it from party coffers, and by the looks of the financial report presented at the last conference, the ANC should now be able to afford this themselves.
Let’s also hope that this is not a substitute for the ANC improving its media relations and ending its hostility to the commercial media, which does not do the party nor anyone else any good.
Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, Journalism, Print
3 Comments Add your own
1. Tendayi Sithole | July 14th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I just imagine the Sowetan newspaper being the mouth piece of the ANC. Journalists, editors, columnists and other staff members will have to practice “developmental journalism.” Their reporting should be skewed as to suit the party line.
The other alternative would be for the above mentioned personels to take their files, photo frames in their news desks and other belongings and move out of the newsroom. They can send their CVs and portfolios to other media organisations as to pay their bills and installments for survival means.
It seem on the other side that those journalists and media practitioners who critical of the ANC in their news reports are likely to be purged from the newsroom anyway.
The post-Polokwane fever is really gaining momentun. I just wonder how the news reports wil look like and the content. Hence I still imagine who will be sitting in those news desks.
I don’t think people like Thabo Leshilo, Ido Lekota, Juliette Saunders to name few will be able to be ANC propaganda machines. Maybe the ANC will bring its own newsroom staff and I have some in mind. The columnists will be Gwede Mantashe, Julius Malema, Dr Blade Mzimande.
The paper is likely to survive though in this competitive media environment through heavy government advertising revenue and companies funding te ruling party. Papers like Sunday Times should be frightened since the Post Polokwane fever is looming closer. Avusa may turn into ANC Publishers Limited if it does not watch its space.
2. Bernard | July 24th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
It was Koni Media, bidding to buy the Sunday Times at R7bn, all of a sudden, Tokyo Sexwale emerged, within seconds, Johnnic Communications changed into Avusa after Mr. Sexwale acquired a stake in the company (between four and five billion). Now the ANC wants to take over the Sowetan. What’s going on exactly? Is Tokyo there by a purpose of turning things around for the ANC? Avusa watch out!
3. Len van Heerden | March 5th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Professor Anton Harber is on record as saying that the stories that were reported about President Kgalema Motlanthe, which are now proving to be untrue, were correct in being published because it gave us an understanding of how Kgalema Motlanthe conducted himself in public. Indeed, many media houses deemed this the issue of who was the First Lady of South Africa.
I am not an ANC supporter, but the media has once again proved their own inability to determine fact from fiction, as long as they can sell newspapers.
There is no doubt that the concerned papers received lots of publicity which may have translated into more newspaper sales and perhaps more subscriptions and advertising money.
One can understand why a tabloid would find such a story interesting, but the Sunday Independant has different standards and the excuse that they were dubed by an obviously uneducated birth machine does not ring that true. It simply is not possible that this girl can lie through the chain of command of a leading newspaper, unless such a paper knew that the story was hardly true, but an apology the next weekend would not harm their sales anyway.
This is not the first time a Sunday paper has relied on unethical means or even lies to create a story, and only apologise later after the money has been made.
What is sad is that once again Anton Harber, as a Professor of Journalism, gave us the impression that this is the type of journalism being taught at Wits.
Any good journalist when receiving a story of this nature would have done a lot more to verify the story, including talking to people known to the girl and even understanding her mental make up. There are even test questions that can be asked to corroborate her stories even on issues unrelated to the story. However, when a journalist has made up his mind about the story, it seems that reason is substituted for the need to be the first to break a story.
It is sad, especially when it basically bismirch someone’s reputation.
In the case of Carl Niehaus, he once again gave the media what they wanted to hear and many assumptions were created. In the end, Niehaus was found to be an even worse liar. It becomes hard to believe what he may have told the ANC, though the ANC should have known his record when he was fired at GEDA and his many jobs that never lasted.
In the end, it seems the media is more keen to go out first with a story.
The story of the attack on the Sri Lankan team near Gaddafi stadium in Lahore once again had the media claiming different numbers from 8, down to 2, then 5 and eventually 6 people injured all within a very short space. Nobody bothered to verify the facts, because they fear someone will publish first.
Something needs to happen and the media need to be hit hard to learn that every right comes with some responsibilities.
We are still waiting for the Sunday Times to reveal more about their claim that former President Mbeki received R30m and then gave R2m to the ANC and the rest to Jacob Zuma. The story sounded so incredible because it makes no sense why he would be the conduit for a bribe he was not benefitting from, but obviously such issues do not concern journalists and their editors. Publish first and confirm later?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed