July 20th, 2009
The SOS (Save our SABC) Campaign has launched a petition to push for the board selection process to be more transparent and accountable. They have hit the nail on the head, I would say.
There has been debate about whether parliament, which messed up so badly last time, is the appropriate body to conduct these nominations. I am of the view that there may be a better way to distance the board selection process from the direct hurly-burly of party politics. My colleague Tawana Kupe has argued that parliament has more credibility than a selection board of “the elite”. I disagree with him, as parliament’s cred on this is very low, and there is no reason why another selection board should be limited to the business and journalistic “elite”.
However, what is most important at this stage is that whoever runs the process is accountable for their decisions. And to achieve accountability, you have to have transparency. So most critical at this stage is to ensure that the posts are properly advertised, all details of the nominators and their nominees are made public and hearings be broadcast.
That is what the petition is about. Go to Maximum Public Participation and sign it. Now.
Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, Journalism, Media regulation, Radio, TV
Anton Harber: Media
Professor Anton Harber directs the Journalism and Media Studies Programme at Wits University. He is former editor of the Mail & Guardian.
Full bio
Among the main results from the World Association of Newspaper’s Newsroom Barometer (a survey of 700 editors and senior news execs in 120 countries) for this year:
- 86% believe integrated print and online newsrooms will become the norm, and 83% believe journalists will be expected to be able to produce content for all media within five years.
- Two-thirds believe some editorial functions will be outsourced, despite frequent newsroom opposition to the practice.
- A plurality - 44% - believe on-line will be the most common platform for reading news in the future, compared with 41% last year. Thirty-one cited print (down from 35% last year), 12% mobile and 7% e-paper. The rest were unsure.
- A majority of editors - 56%- believe news in the future will be free, up from 48% from last year’s survey. Only one-third believe the news will remain paid for, while 11% were unsure. - From Editors’ Weblog
There is a crisis in trust and communication between the British public and the mainstream media, a new report has concluded. The gulf between public expectations of news provision and the actual nature of articles, which oscillate between esoteric or irresponsible, leaves readers feeling confused and excluded.
The report, entitled ‘Public Trust In The News’ was conducted by researchers from Manchester and Leeds Universities and was published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. - From Editors Weblog
Reflections on Journalism in the Transition to Democracy - Ethics & International Affairs 18, no. 3 (2004).
Journalism in the Age of the Market
- Harold Wolpe Memorial Lecture, Centre for Civil Society, University of KZN, Aug 2002
The Untimely Death of SA’s Finest Daily - Sunday Times, May 2005
“Two Newspapers, Two Nations? The Media and the Xenophobic Violence” from Go Home or Die Here, edited by Shireen Hassim Tawana Kupe and Eric Worby (WUP, 2008)
Remarks at Goedgedacht Forum, October 2008
The rise of social network journalism - From The 2009 Flux Trend Review (Macmillan, 2008)
A recent piece by me on the Zapiro cartoon row which appeared in Comment is Free, a Guardian blog.
Subscribe
Sign up for email notifications of updates
Feeds
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