Some ideas for the SABC

March 11th, 2009

Sometime last year, I arrived at the SABC to participate in SAFM’s 8am debate to find two unmanned television cameras in the studio and some makeshift banners behind presenter Jeremy Maggs.
I was taken aback, not least of all because I was dressed for early–morning radio, banking on no-one but the genial Maggs having to see me. The cameras, I was told, were there to broadcast the show on the newly-launched flagship station, SABC International.

The ethics were questionable: how can you not warn guests that they are to be broadcast on live television? Much worse was that this had to be the worst television programme in the world: two immobile cameras shooting two men talking to each other in the dull surroundings of a radio studio.

That morning, someone somewhere watched SABC International and saw me spill my coffee on the studio table and Maggs managing with great aplomb to keep talking while we scurried around trying to prevent damage to equipment.

Well, maybe someone saw it. I can still not find anyone who was able to access SABC International as it was only available at that time on a satellite system nobody used.

I saw in last week’s announcement that the SABC was posting a R700-m loss this year that their expanded international coverage was a significant element in the cost over-runs. Well, I can tell the portfolio committee that it is not because they are doing any fancy programming or doing wasteful things like putting cameramen behind their cameras.

However, there is a question the parliamentarians should be asking SABC management about their fantasy turn-around plans: how do they project a 14% increase in revenue in a situation where they have lost 30% of their advertising in recent months, and everyone says it is going to get worse before it gets better?

The SABC has been a mess many times in its long and torturous history, but I cannot remember quite so holy a mess as this. It is starting to put other parastatals like the SAA and Eskom to shame.

Consider this: parliament has passed a special law to get rid of the board it nominated; the board has fired the Group CEO; they can’t appoint anyone else because the incumbent is refusing a reported R8-m package and won’t go; he in turn suspended the head of news, who is now reinstated; they are R700-m in the red and have to get a government guarantee because the banks won’t give them credit; and they are not paying their bills.

And that is before we discuss their election coverage.

The root problem here is that they have allowed ANC internal bickering to invade the organisation. I suppose that is what happens when you are too close to the ruling party: when it splits, you don’t know which split to follow and the divisions and differences infect your organisation.

I am sure the old National Party broadcasters know all about this.

One can debate whether or not the election coverage is biased, and I guess one can pick it apart news programme by news programme to reach a conclusion. But the fact is that you have to be seen to be independent, and you can’t be when you have party cadres running the organisation and its current affairs programmes.

So the election debates they have been running on SABC2 on Sunday nights, for example, have been reasonable, if a bit chaotic. But every time they choose to cover or not cover something, we are going to ask if this decision was made by a party cadre and which faction of the party is he or she serving.

The real problem I am seeing is not so much bias, but the quality of coverage. Is the SABC going to give us in-depth programming on party leaders, their characters and histories? Is it going to ask tough, probing questions of each party about their key policy issues? Is it going to follow them around and record what they are saying and how people are reacting to them? Most of all, is it going to give us a presidential debate, or equivalent – as it is the one body with the clout and stature to force this to happen.

I suspect not, because the ANC would not want it. And it is their word which rules the organisation.
I have one solution to make for a relatively quick, pre-election, partial fix for the SABC to be seen to be more independent: appoint a public editor.

I was part of the panel which investigated the difficulties the Sunday Times was having last year with some of its more outlandish stories, and we recommended it to them. A public editor, we suggested, should be appointed at arm’s-length to the editor and given the power to adjudicate on complaints and order corrections or retractions. This person could act as an active interface with the public, giving them a way to address issues of accuracy or fairness quickly and easily – moving away from the situation where one has to complain to the subject of one’s complaint in most news media.

We also suggested that a public editor could be responsible for campaigns to improve the relationship with the public, and take initiatives to encourage participation in SABC matters.

Public editors have become quite common in newspapers around the world. The New York Times appointed one after they went through some editorial difficulties a couple of years ago.

A public editor is somewhat different to an ombudsman, since they have a wider brief: to improve the relationship with the audience and not only to respond to complaints or problems.

Let me hasten to say that a public editor does not solve the issue – and probably presents no more than a way to ameliorate an issue temporarily. It does not take away the problem of who is making editorial decisions and on what basis they are doing so – but it does provide some protection against abuse and does give the public a quick and efficient way to pursue complaints and interface with an organisation as big and bureaucratic as the SABC.

In the longer term, we need a new way to appoint the board of the SABC so that it does not continue to be subjected to the vagaries of the ANC’s internal divisions. Parliament has messed it up – after all, they nominated this board – and we need a system like the Judicial Services Commission to take these appointments one step away from the politicians.

It seems we will also need a new funding model, and we will have to decide whether the SABC is a commercial enterprise or a public service. My view is that it should shrink to a public service, funded at least partially by selling off its vast commercial assets. By my calculations, SABC still controls 54% of television advertising and 44% of radio advertising – and that is a very unhealthy situation.

*This column first appeared in Beeld, 14 March 2009

Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, Journalism, Radio, TV