Here’s what we have for you this Media Monday:

·         The Spear divides the nation

·         Youth Wage Subsidy – what is it again?

·         The Sunday Times  and “brown envelope” journalism

The Spear and the uproar...and the media

It has been called insulting; some said it was a test for democracy and a test for our Constitution as it pits the right to dignity against freedom of expression. It’s also been referred to as an attack on African morality and on black culture. Some even went on to ‘unpack’ it “from a racialised and colonial perspective” and concluded that it uses “an insensitive and cruel colonial construct” to critique the president’s leadership, while others said it is aimed at creating social change.

It has been on almost everyone’s lips and making waves in all kinds of media. The ruling African National Congress (ANC) has approached the courts to force the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg to remove it from display and for the City Press newspaper to remove it from its website. And the last time we checked, the newspaper was sticking to its guns.

It is titled “The Spear”, and has divided the nation!

But we are more interested in what the media have said about it, or how they reported on it. After all, we are Media Matters!

While some had the guts enough to run with the story and included the portrait with its bare bits, some chickened out a bit and censored it. Is it because of the resultant uproar already created by the artwork (if you see it as such, that is), or because of it being at deliberation of the justice system? Is it because of difference in audiences and their tastes for what is news (and newsworthy), an editorial decision maybe, or just plain chickening out?

Why is that? What do you think? Facebook and Tweet us...

What exactly is the Youth Wage Subsidy all about?

The youth wage subsidy was the bone of contention when a sea of red (trade union federation Cosatu) clashed with a sea of blue (the Democratic Alliance) sometime last week. It all started with the DA staging a march to the Cosatu headquarters in Braamfontein, Johannesburg when the stand-off began, with Cosatu supporters forming a man-made wall to stop the DA marchers from going a step further than Cosatu allowed.

Johannesburg city centre was turned into a battlefield, literally, as reports coming from the stand-off were that  blood was also flowing after missiles of rocks were pelted into another group by another one (we are not sure which did what as we were not there), and maybe even a retaliation...

But that aside, what exactly is this youth wage subsidy that was the cause of the stand-off? There was extensive coverage of the march with both parties involved, and #YouthWageSubsidy trending on social networks. Amid various media reporting on the march, were the right questions asked about the youth wage subsidy phenomenon and what it is? Did the media explain to you exactly what they were talking about, why the DA was marching and Cosatu defending its stance on it?

Consider this reader’s account of what s/he thinks of the youth wage subsidy is, based on a “very little bit of reading” s/he has done. Has the media also attempted to do the same and tell you what it’s all about, and arguments from both parties involved? Find us on Facebook and Twitter and give us your views on the matter...

Wanted: evidence of “brown envelope” journalism

The issue of the so-called “brown envelope” journalism reared its head again recently, with the Sunday Times newspaper yesterday dismissing allegations of its journalists being implicated in acts of “brown envelope” journalism – a journalistic activity which involves transfer of various types of rewards from sources to the reporter. Through its editor Ray Hartley, the publication denied that its journalists were paid from a crime intelligence slush fund to write an article casting suspicion on senior police officials involved in the investigation of former crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli.

The National Press Club (NPC) viewed the allegations as very worrying and serious and called for authorities to get to the bottom of the matter. The NPC also called on media houses suspected of being involved to launch their own investigations.

In a front-page opinion article yesterday, the Sunday Times demanded evidence from the police that the paper’s journalists received bribes. The South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) said in a statement that they viewed the allegations of journalists receiving bribes in a serious light, and asked the police for more information about such allegations.

But what are the chances that there will be any evidence brought forward? Isn’t it a point in any act of bribery and/or corruption to hide evidence, or better yet, to make sure there isn’t any evidence available at all? Does that mean if there is no evidence brought forward by the police, all will be well in the Sunday Times and the media world and no internal investigations will be conducted by both the paper or media houses and Sanef?

We will wait to hear your opinion on Facebook and Twitter on this.

On the menu this Media Tuesday:

·         Invitation to debate: Is Press Freedom under threat?

·         Proposed changes to the Info Bill – what did media say about this?

·         A look at media’s coverage of FW de Klerk interview on CNN

Invitation to debate on SA Press Freedom

Wits Journalism in partnership with Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) invites all editors, journalists, media personnel, media freedom and right to know activists and citizens to a debate on South Africa’s press freedom. The debate, themed “Is Press Freedom Under Threat?”, is scheduled to take place as follows:

Date: 18 May 2012
Time: 2pm
Venue: Chalsty Centre, West Campus, Wits University

Twitter hashtag: #PFDebate (Live-tweeted by Media Matters)

The debate is scheduled in response to the hot topic of press freedom in SA under fire, sparking many questions, debates and discussions over the past few years with the so called “secrecy bill” (POSIB – Protection of State Information Bill), the looming media appeals tribunal (MAT), and now the recent release of the Press Freedom Commission (PFC) report. The debate will be chaired by Professor Anton Harber, and will have on the panel:

Mondli Makhanya – Chairperson, SA National Editors’ Forum (Sanef)
Julie Reid – University of South Africa (Unisa)
Joe Latakgomo – Public Editor, Avusa Media
William Bird – Director, Media Monitoring Africa (MMA)

Following the PFC’s recommendations that the media change hands from self-regulation to independent co-regulation, questions to ponder are: what will this mean; how will this affect the work of journalists; and will press freedom take a knock?

Join us live at Wits for the debate, or follow us on Twitter (@MediaMattersZA) as we tweet live from the event through hashtag #PFDebate.

What did your media say about the redrafted version of the Info Bill?

The ruling African National Congress (ANC) last week that the proposed some changes to the contested Protection of State Information Bill (POSIB or info bill, aka “secrecy bill”). The general feel from SA media and concerned stakeholders was that the move was a step in the right direction, albeit with a few reservations and some dissatisfaction.

Some said the move was indicative of the ruling party climbing down on the proposed law, some saw it a breakthrough and a softening stance, and a win to some extent. And of course the mixed responses to the ANC’s propositions were also noted, as was the some dissatisfaction amongst those who thought that the changes do not go far enough. There was quite an extensive coverage across the spectrum by the country’s media afforded for a controversial subject that the bill has been and still is to the media, government and the civil society.

But how far did the media go in terms of unpacking and explaining in details the proposed changes to the public? Were the planned amendments to the clauses explained fully? Was the coverage based largely on the overview of the bill and what the proposed changes are, leaving the ordinary member of the public in the dark about what it means and what the legal implications are? Were the changes reported in the most basic way that people don’t really understand what is going on? What do you think? How did you find the coverage? Facebook and Tweet us your comments...

The FW de Klerk interview: what was the coverage like?

Many have by now heard at least something about former SA statesman, FW de Klerk’s interview with Christiane Amanpour. Those who read newspapers and watch news, and are part on any of the well-known social networks certainly have heard about it! But anyway, let’s just say that the interview, or rather some of the thing de Klerk said in it, caused quite an uproar in the media and on social networks, and still continues to do so.

The bone of contention in de Klerk’s interview was when he said that the apartheid system was and remained morally indefensible, and refusing to apologise for the concept of nation states (aka homelands) as was implemented by the apartheid regime.

The ANC was not impressed with de Klerk’s remarks; the Advancement of the SA Constitution (Casac) condemned his comments and called for a retraction; and the National Health and Allied Workers' Union (Nehawu) demanded that his Nobel Peace Prize be retracted.

The FW de Klerk Foundation said that de Klerk’s comments were taken out of context, and the man himself also denied having any nostalgia for apartheid as interpreted by those who watched his CNN interview.

But what else was the subject of the interview and what else did FW talk about? He talked about SA’s democracy not being healthy, speaking about the ruling SA’s occupying almost 2/3 majority of the vote, and also a move from ethnically-based politics to value-based politics. We could be mistaken, but these are some of the things that have been talked about during elections in SA, where the fact that the ANC alone occupies a very large share of the vote is seen as a threat to democracy, and the need for a stronger opposition is always talked about.

He also spoke about the issue of axed ANCYL president Julius Malema’s expulsion; indicating that Malema was axed from the ANC for his statements on leadership in Botswana and on President Jacob Zuma’s leadership, rather than his racist statements. Among other issues that de Klerk spoke about and the media ignored was the important issue of unemployment in SA, especially among the youth.

Do feel free though to send us your views on media’s coverage of the de Klerk interview: how you found it, whether or not you felt it was selective reporting, biased or fair, etc... Hit us up on Facebook and Twitter!

And here’s what’s on offer this Media Monday:

·         An exciting, new FREE 6-week online Media Literacy Course launched

·         SABC presents plans before Parliament

·         A look at how media covered World Press Freedom Day celebrations

Media Works: a new exciting initiative by Media Monitoring Africa

It’s here, it’s exciting, and its aim is to get all South Africans well-equipped with basic media knowledge and understanding so they can be able to get involved and take part in any debate relating to South African media.

This is a Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) initiative in conjunction with Media Matters (@MediaMattersZA). It’s called Media Works: A Gateway to Understanding the Media – a FREE 6-week basic "Media Literacy for Beginners" online course covering a series of topics relating to South African media.

The initiative’s mission is to give the South African public a basic understanding of key topics relating to South Africa such as:

• The role of media in a democracy

• Public service broadcasting

• Community media in South Africa

• Digital migration

• Print media in South Africa

• The quality of South African media

The course starts this week, and will be conducted through podcasts featuring well-known SA media experts talking to the above-mentioned topics, and then posted on the initiative's dedicated Facebook page.

‘Like’ the page on Facebook, follow @MediaWorkZA on Twitter, get signed up for the course, and get involved in pressing SA media debates from an informed position... You can also Facebook and Tweet us your thoughts on this initiative; your views are welcome...

SABC’s Corporate Plan 2012-2015 – what do you think?

The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) presented its corporate plan for 2012 to 2015 in Parliament last week Wednesday. The public broadcaster, through its Group CEO Lulama Mokhobo, indicated that it hoped to clarify in its policies on whose head editorial control rested by the end of the next financial year.

This relates to the current debate going on about the role of the CEO in editorial matters, after the SABC’s head of news Phil Molefe was placed on special leave, reportedly for giving too much airtime to axed ANCYL president Julius Malema.

Interestingly though, the SABC at the time said it was a human resources matter and denied the saga had anything to do with the CEO trying to compromise the editorial independence, or that it was an editorial issue for that matter.

It seems from media reports that this sudden need to put to bed the debate around the role of the CEO in editorial matters arises from the saga involving the head of news. If that is the case, is this the SABC finally admitting that its head of news is on special leave as a result of some disagreement with the CEO over editorial issues? Why was this denied in the first place? Why the secrecy?

Anyway, back to the SABC’s grand corporate plan... The broadcaster also indicated its plans to spend R1 billion in 2013 on buying and commissioning international and local content, R800m of which will be spent exclusively on local content.

Two weeks ago we blogged in our bulletin about a show that debuted over 20 years ago, MacGyver, reportedly being the SABC 3’s most watched show. Does this mean that the R1 billion rand will be spent on other shows of MacGyver’s calibre to boost audiences? But that will still mean the SABC would be known for airing repeated shows, won’t it? Or will they buy new, fresh programmes and do away with old ones like MacGyver despite being viewership hits? Besides, where will they get local content from? Hmmm! This will be interesting to see!

Do tell us what you think of the issue though. What do you think of the SABC’s plans? Do you think the editorial issue can be sorted out, and what will be the best solution to it? And the programming issue; do you trust the SABC will one day attract its audiences back, and that the money will really be spent on new content, especially local content? Facebook and Tweet us you views...

World Press Freedom Day celebration: how was the day covered?

South Africa (SA) joined the world in commemorating World Press Freedom Day on May 3, 2012. As we indicated in our bulletin about two weeks ago, the day, according to Unesco website, aims to celebrate “the fundamental principles of press freedom; to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession”.

SA joined the frenzy, and so did the local media. There was a focus on SA having dropped to number 42 on Reporters Without Borders’ press freedom ranking. But, and maybe as has come to be expected, much of the talk about media freedom in SA doesn’t happen without any mention of certain two pieces of legislation: the Protection of State Information Bill (POSIB, aka “secrecy” bill) and the proposed media appeals tribunal (MAT).

There is no doubt that both these two pieces of legislation have a great impact on the country’s media freedom. But surely these are not the only points to focus on now, are they? What about debates around the role of women in the media and its freedom? Is the media free for women? And equally, can we also talk about children enjoying the same amount of freedom in the media as everyone else?

William Bird, director of Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) wrote a column applauding the new Press Code as recommended by the Press Freedom Commission (PFC). Bird indicated in the column the significant focus that the new code pays to children, pointing to a dedicated section on children and the preamble of the code referring to the best interests of the child principle contained in our Constitution.

Is that not one of the important things to focus on when days such as the World Press Freedom Day are celebrated? Surely media freedom speaks not only to the issues of media legislations but also to what media freedom is and should be to various constituencies of society, women and children included?

What do you think? Let’s hear from you; Facebook and Tweet us your views and comments...

Here is what we have on offer this Media Monday:

·         Daily Sun and the Soweto gang rape – emphasising the end, ignoring the means?

·         SABC 3’s most watched programme – wanna take a guess?

·         World Press Freedom Day – What are the challenges in South Africa, and how do we use the day to highlight them?

Daily Sun and the Soweto gang rape – where should media draw the line?

During the course of last week we witnessed a huge part of South Africa united in condemnation of a shocking video in which seven boys gang-rape a 17-year old Soweto girl. The video went viral on social networks across the country, causing even bigger uproar on those networks. Concerned groups spoke against the incident, the video itself (including access and distribution thereof) and how the media covered the matter.

The Daily Sun published the picture of the girl on front page, a move found by media expert and University of the Witwatersrand journalism professor Anton Harber to be highly problematic as the girl was both a minor and a rape victim. Harber said that while the media could argue that use of the images and audio were in the public interest, the footage should be used only with "extreme caution and sensitivity".

Media watchdog, Media Monitoring Africa (MMA), said that they were aware that the Daily Sun had published an image of the girl and would be meeting with the publication to discuss the matter.

Of course the Daily Sun defended its publishing of the girl’s picture by saying that they were given consent by the girl’s mother to do so, and that they did so to help track the girl’s whereabouts as she was missing. The publication, claiming to have helped the police arrest perpetrators, went on to shun criticism from self-appointed media watchdogs, and said that it consulted with experts about its course of action, and had “no choice” but to go ahead and publish the picture.

The paper said there were exceptional circumstances at play, and while it recognised the importance of restrictions when reporting on rape victims and children, it made no apology for help to, find the girl and, bring the suspected attackers to justice.

"If we hadn't, NO crime would have been uncovered, NO arrests would have been made and this helpless girl... would still be missing", Daily Sun said.

It sounds to the Media Matters team that the paper is using and emphasising the ends to justify the means. Assuming that the paper, by publishing the girl’s picture, helped in the arrest of the perpetrators (which is in no way certain) – does that make it okay to publish on front page of a national newspaper the picture of a girl who is a minor, a victim and also a witness to a crime? Where should the media draw the line? As there is no public interest here, what makes this case so special that it outweighs the law? Find us of Facebook and Twitter and give us your opinion on this and other media matters.

MacGyvercomes back to rescue SABC 3’s viewership crisis

An online media and entertainment website last week reported that a television show that debuted almost 30 years ago, MacGyver, is back and making waves in the local television viewership circles. The show started airing on the SABC’s commercial TV channel, the SABC 3, and is apparently quite a viewership hit on the channel.

The Channel24 story says that the show is singlehandedly saving, and helping to drive a successful ratings drive, for the struggling channel, and notes how impressive it is that it is not even “broadcast in primetime, but at 12:00 daily when a much smaller potential TV audience is available.” In fact, according to the report, the show is even more popular than anything else in all of SABC3's primetime line-up, and the SABC has even received calls from viewers saying that they were rushing home to watch it!

Amazing, isn’t it? Especially considering how old the show is, and how the issue of fresh, new and riveting, locally-produced content is on many people’s lips as the digital age looms. We often hear about how, after the country migrates from analogue to a digital signal, broadcasters will be allocated more spectra, meaning they will have space for more channels. One of the main concerns with the SABC is whether or not those multiple channels will have fresh, new and exciting content to fill them up, or whether the broadcaster will use them for repeated shows. As it is, it seems the SABC is repeating most of its shows. For example, Mr. Bones 2 (movie) was aired on SABC 1 on a Saturday night and then again on SABC 3 the next day during the day.

If this old show seems to be the one bringing the ‘mojo’ back into the SABC, it begs the question: are the repeats and old shows as bad as they are made out to be? Will it be okay if, in the digital age, the SABC fills the bulk of the extra channels it will get with recycled shows? I mean, why not? The people seem to love them, or at least some of them like MacGyver, which is bringing viewers back to the SABC 3 screens!

It is also quite interesting that, a short while ago in this bulletin we spoke about SABC news’ viewership woes. So, how is it that primetime news bulletins are losing viewers, while daytime repeats of shows from way back in the day are raking them in? Does it say something about the South African people’s media consumption patterns and/or culture? Does that mean that we do not like watching news, and we prefer old shows to news bulletins and current affairs? Does that maybe speak to the quality of the news against that of the popular shows – that the public broadcaster is putting more emphasis and resources on increasing viewership than on news?

Please help us understand the implications around this issue. Facebook and Tweet us with your thoughts and views...

Celebrate World Press Freedom Day on May 3

“Every year, May 3rd is a date which celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom; to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession”, reads a paragraph from Unesco website.

“3 May was proclaimed World Press Freedom Day the UN General Assembly in 1993 following a Recommendation adopted at the twenty-sixth session of UNESCO's General Conference in 1991”, the next paragraph continues.

Unesco is one of 30 organisers of a three-day conference, to be held in Tunis, Tunisia, which also include the Tunisian government and the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Misa).

According to the Mail and Guardian, the key theme for this year is “How to preserve and deepen the free speech gains symbolized by the Arab Spring”, and will include a host of other equally pressing media issues on the agenda for discussion.

Taking it closer to home, how would you like to see the day celebrated in South Africa? What pressing media issues do you think should be on the table in terms of the country’s struggles for press freedom? What sort of outcomes would you like to see out of such discussions?

We would love to hear from you - Facebook and Tweet us your suggestions…

Here’s what’s on the menu this Media Monday:

·         The Zuma wedding – clarity on a few more details, please?

·         e-tolling saga continues – crucial details still not clear

·         National ICT Policy Colloquium this week

Are all details clear on Zuma’s wedding and expenses?

The media confirmed this past weekend that President Jacob Zuma is scheduled to walk down the isle for the sixth time this weekend. According to media reports, uMsholozi will marry his long-time fiancee, Bongi Ngema, who will be JZ’s fourth wife (or fifth, depending on which newspaper you read). This was confirmed by the president's spokesman, Mac Maharaj.

The presidential spokesperson was quick to allay fears that the public would be footing the bill for the ceremony by indicating that the cost is to be paid by the groom himself, and that there will be no government involvement or cost. Maharaj also indicated as incorrect media reports that suggested the State would bear the cost of maintaining Zuma's wives. Such a relief, isn’t it?

But who is paying for what? Who exactly is footing the bill here? Is it Jacob Zuma himself, or one of his (many) business &/or financial connects? If it’s the latter, are we not in for another round of Zuma vs. Shaik saga, but this time with someone else other than Shaik? Earlier this year there was report of Shaik demanding his R2 million loan from Zuma – hope we don’t see the repeat of that episode.

Speculation aside, the question still remains: who exactly is paying and for what? Are we not entitled to some sort of a breakdown of the total cost of the ceremony, maybe as assurance that we are not paying? If so, where are those details; why are they not included in the many media reports over the weekend about Zuma getting hitched?

Is it a case of our media not communicating such information fully to the public? Or is it maybe the Presidency’s fault that such information is not made available to us?

Moving on, we are talking about the President marrying a fourth wife here. City Press even reported that there are still more waiting in the wings to tie the knot with Zuma. So there could be a gender debate in this matter, right? If right, why is it not reflected in the media? Is it because it’s a cultural issue, and much like religion in many cases, a sensitive issue to tread on?

What do you think? Let’s hear your views on Facebook and Twitter...

e-tolling – where are the details?

The debate on the e-tolling system being introduced by the SA National Roads Agency (Sanral) continues and is getting heated by the week if not day. The debate was heated by Sanral’s announcement that motorists who do not register for e-tags, or who do not have valid and operational e-tags and who do not pay within seven days will ultimately pay a significantly higher tariff.

BusinessTech reports that “The agency cited costs associated with recovering payment, including invoicing and debt collection, as reasons for the R1.75c punitive tariff per kilometre, compared to the standard tariff of 30c per kilometre for registered users.”

The e-tolling situation is getting so worse that even some companies who use the roads to deliver their goods and services to customers have reportedly told their drivers to avoid e-toll roads. The companies said this was because the tolls were expensive for the companies, and done in the best interests of consumers and customers. Unions have also indicated the tolls were a risk to food security and would have an impact on food prices.

But amid the debate and the momentum it’s gaining, a couple of details are still missing from either Sanral or the media. What is the breakdown of the e-toll money that motorists will be paying if the plan goes ahead as planned? How much goes where, we’d love to know. How much of the money goes to servicing of our roads? How much to the company that built the tolls? And how long will motorists pay; that is, how much will it take for whatever the debt Sanral or government has as a result of the tolls take to pay off?

Details please! Clearly someone is not communicating this piece of information to us. It is Sanral? Is it the media’s fault by not asking these questions, or just not communicating? Facebook and Tweet us your views on this subject; we would love to hear from you.

National ICT Policy review this week

The Department of Communications (DoC) has announced that it will be hosting a two-day ICT Policy Colloquium later this week on the 19 -20 April 2012, at Gallagher Estate. According to the DoC, the aim of the colloquium is to start a process of reviewing all the government ICT policies that have been in existence since 1994.

The Colloquium will have ten commissions chaired by ICT sector experts:

• Policy and Regulation: Broadcasting
• Policy and Regulation: Information Technology
• Policy and Regulation: Telecommunications
• Policy and Regulation: The Postal Service and its potential in ICT
• Local Digital Content
• Digitising Government
• ICT Investment
• Human Capital
• Manufacturing
• Convergence based ICT Solutions and Services

 South African Minister of Communications, Dina Pule, said that the forum will enable us to converse about how the country can develop ICT policies that will benefit South Africa for the next 20 years, and that the recommendations and decisions that will come out of the Colloquium will form a key component into the policy and development process for an integrated National ICT Policy.

In short, the forum will determine policy around broadcasting, telecommunications, the internet, etc. Sounds pretty important, doesn’t it? It is! And the sectors named above all need some major deliberation on. So will two days be enough to go through all these?

Among some of the areas of concern related to such a forum are the latest media reports about SA’s cellphone pricing being among the most expensive in Africa despite an intervention to regulate the tariffs. The question is, do the telecommunications companies too much power to defy efforts to regulate the prices? What should the policy be regarding this issue? And, what should the role of the regulator, Icasa (Independent Communications Authority of SA), be in this case?

Find us on Facebook and Twitter and tell us what you think of this matter...

On the menu this Media Tuesday:

·         The public protector receives a complaint against SABC’s acting COO;

·         The Star launches its Africa edition; and,

·         The “Road to Mangaung” everywhere we go?

Will the public protector’s investigations change the SABC for the better?

Judging by the ups and downs the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) has had over the last decade or so, there is little surprise that it is in the news again.

Last week, it emerged that “former and current SABC senior staffers lodged a complaint with the public protector against the SABC’s acting chief operations officer, Hlaudi Motsoeneng. The complaint includes serious allegations of maladministration, corruption, SABC board collusion, unprocedural salary increments that shoot up the SABC payroll, and Motsoeneng misrepresenting his academic qualifications.”

We know, from the media reports, that the public protector’s office “confirmed that they received the complaint against Mr Motsoeneng.” We also know that “neither the SABC nor Mr Motsoeneng is aware of the complaint and that the SABC will cooperate with the public protector if they are requested to do so.”

We do not know whether the allegations are true or not. That is for the public protector to determine! But given the SABC’s history, will the public protector’s investigations change the public broadcaster for the better? Will the probe solve the problems bedevilling the public broadcaster? If not, what do you think is the best way forward? What should the board be doing about this matter? Are they doing something about this matter or should they wait for the public protector? Hit us on Facebook and Twitter.

What will be so different about the Star Africa edition?

Last week the Saturday Star reported that it will officially launch its Star Africa edition today (10 April 2011). The Star Africa edition was inspired by the success of the newspaper’s Soweto edition, which despite having a “small team of dedicated reporters,”  witnessed a rise in sales from “600 on launch to 6000 a day now,” the editor said.

The Africa edition will have its own dedicated content editor. The target audience of the edition will be particularly black people with a township background. They decided to call it the Africa edition because “it’s the name of the paper’s old edition for black readers under apartheid. The difference this time is that we’re African by choice, not by law,” the editor further elaborated.

Aside from reaching a generally untapped audience, the Media Matters team welcomes the idea of a new edition as it may mean more information to the public. However, given that those who currently read the Soweto edition indicate that the content is not all that different from the mainstream edition, we have to wonder how different the Africa edition will be? In addition, given the volatile economic condition we are in, will the edition perform as expected? What sort of content would you want to see in the edition? Give us your views on Facebook and Twitter!

Do all roads lead to and end in Mangaung?

It is no coincidence that almost all mainstream media in South Africa , everyday, carry a story on the African National Congress (ANC) in regard to its December elective conference in Mangaung. Even the Daily Sun almost every day carries a story with the inscription: “Road to Mangaung 2012 – ANC Conference.” For those who may not know, the ANC holds its elective conference every five years and the last one was in 2007 in Polokwane, which saw Jacob Zuma voted ANC president.

The ANC elective conferences are always a huge thing because in some way they inform the direction of the country. However, a close look at the mainstream media reports about Mangaung reveals that the media tend to focus on the ANC factions. In other words, the media seem to focus on who is doing what now in order to emerge victorious.

Last week Professor Kupe lamented the mainstream media’s obsession with Malema as blinding media to crucial debates. The same could be said about the media’s coverage of the “road to Mangaung.” Is the media’s obsession with ANC factions blinding the media to crucial debates? Is the media being fair in pitching ANC politicians against each other, or are the politicians doing that for them? Are all the country’s ills going to be solved at Mangaung? Is there a life after Mangaung? If there is, what sort of life would you want to have? Have your say on our Facebook and Twitter pages.

On the menu this Media Monday:

·         Is The New Age guilty of factionalist reporting?;

·         Human Rights Day coverage: a case of media fatigue?;

·         DTT awareness campaign underway, and;

·         Zille’s “refugee” comment.

Malema accuses The New Age of factional political reporting – is he right?

ANC Youth League president Julius Malema decided, last week, to honour his nomination by the National Press Club as Newsmaker of the Year for 2011, after snubbing the nomination last year. Malema shared the title with the Public Protector, Thuli Madonsela. It is not really the nomination and his sudden decision to honour it that got our attention, but what he said in his “award acceptance speech” thereafter.

“Juju” allegedly took a swipe at The New Age newspaper, accusing the publication of taking sides in the ANC’s factional politics in its reporting. Malema was quoted as saying:

For sure you know that there are some recently launched newspapers after Polokwane conference, that have taken sides and they are not ashamed. And the New Age, that is what it is ...belongs to a faction and promotes individuals and their factional agendas.

The New Age, of course, refused to take it lying down and reacted to the “Malema attack” in its editorial today (Monday). The publication said that Malema was using its name to grab attention and headlines to try and salvage his political career, which is seemingly on the rocks, and also saying that Malema has a history of fighting the media. The newspaper used the editorial, also, to state how it is independent and objective, and proud of it too.

Malema’s accusations of factional reporting by The New Age come after Professor Tawana Kupe’s call for the media to be extra vigilant. Prof Kupe said the media should avoid using anonymous sources so as to make sure that “they are not being used in political battles by individuals, groups and factions to advance their own electoral strategy.”

Editor of The Daily Dispatch, Brendan Boyle, also indicated the importance of the political battle that looms ahead of ANC’s National Conference in Mangaung later this year. Boyle also called for the media caught up in this political battle to be absolutely vigilant.

Is this a case of media becoming entangled in these whole ANC politics ahead of Mangaung, and finding themselves unintentionally being used in political factional battles ala Kupe and Boyle, or intentionally if there is proof of Malema’s accusations against The New Age? So the question is how have you found The New Age’s coverage of ANC politics ahead of Mangaung? Is it factional as Malema said, or fair? And how have you found the media reporting in general? Is the media as vigilant as it should be to guard against factional reporting?

Give us your experiences of media’s reporting on ANC politics and factions via Facebook and Twitter...

Human Rights Day coverage – is there media fatigue?

As South Africa commemorated and celebrated Human Rights Day last week on Wednesday (21 March 2012), was there enough media coverage of the day, its historical context, the events on the day that let to its commemoration, and what it means?

We realised that the spotlight was stolen by service delivery protests around the country on this day, including in Sharpeville, the actual area in which what is commemorated on Human Rights Day occurred. Much more spotlight was stolen by the debate around where official celebrations for the day should take place. The people of Sharpeville protested against government’s decision to stage official Human Rights Day celebration in Soweto, and not in Sharpeville as they had expected.

Some felt the people of Sharpeville were justified in their protest against this day being taken away from them, and that the government had no right to move the celebrations to Soweto. And then, of course, there are those like Sandile Memela who asked “What do the people of Sharpeville mean when they say the government cannot move the commemoration of what happened in Sharpeville to Soweto?”

Which side of the fence do you stand in this whole issue? Should Human Rights Day be celebrated in Sharpeville or anywhere in the country as the fight was fought across the country and not just in Sharpeville?

And while busy gnawing that bone, let us also look at how the media covered (and covers) the events of the day. Is much information on the day provided to remind the people what the day is about? Is the day’s coverage reduced to nothing but just where the celebrations were, who was in attendance, and who said what, while ignoring the real issues? Is the media showing signs of fatigue in covering Human Rights Day, or any other public holiday for that matter; and if so, why? Is the media getting tired of saying the same thing year in, year out? Was there a way to cover service delivery protests in the context of human rights provisions in the constitution?  Facebook and Tweet us with your views and comments...

Digital Terrestrial Migration Awareness Campaign kicks off (or NOT)

The Sunday World newspaper yesterday carried an advertisement by the Department of Communications with details about digital migration. In the many “tweet-up” events that Media Matters attended and took part in, there have been talks about kick-starting a public awareness campaign for a while now to school the people about the mystery (to many, at least) that is digital migration. Is this the campaign?

We visited the Go Digital SA website to find out the more information about digital migration, only to find the website is old and not updated. There is a section about the cost of set-top boxes (STBs) there, and it is stated that the final price is still to be determined. If this is indeed an awareness campaign, is it not a bit premature to kick-start while details still remain unclear, especially with the issue of cost to the public? According to the website, STBs should be available during the first quarter of 2010! What year is this again?

Anyway, we only saw these ads in certain newspapers but haven’t heard anything about an awareness campaign being rolled out. Have you heard something about it? Why is there no (or less) media coverage on it? Is now a good time to be going to the public to tell them about the “Ws & H” of digital migration when there is still so much still hanging in the balance around digital migration?

Facebook and Tweet us with directions on where to look for any information regarding the campaign. Or we will just have to “check the papers” next week for more information as the ads prompts us to do. And by the way, the ad we saw has no contact numbers people can call for information or website details. It says calls for people to “Follow the Go Digital logo” featured in the ad, and we Googled “Go Digital” to find the outdated information above. So, let the waiting games begin – maybe we will tell you more next week after checking the papers next week for more...

Zille’s alleged “refugee” comment sparks outrage

Western Cape premier and DA leader Helen Zille allegedly said something along the lines of Eastern Capetonians in the Western Cape being “refugees”. The media caught the story and it was ”refugee” headlines galore. Social networking sites were also abuzz with “refugee" debates and discussions (together with outrage). Let's not even mention the racial debate it eventually turned out to be, not forgetting the political side of it that also reared its head.

Following that, a SABC news crew took cameras to the Western Cape streets and spoke to a couple of people in the Western Cape who were originally from the Eastern Cape. Those spoken to were not happy about being referred to as refugees, of course.

But hasn’t the SABC ignored more pertinent issues with this issue? How about going a little bit deeper into what prompted the people to leave Eastern Cape and go seek “refuge” in the Western Cape? It’s been in the news that the education system in the Eastern Cape is in shambles. Is that why people are moving to W. Cape; to seek better education? Or is it for better job opportunities? What are government officials (except Zille, of course) saying about this and attributing the movement to? And experts and NGOs, what about some comments from them to shed more light on the issue? We appreciate your views and comments on Facebook and Twitter regarding this and other issues spoken to in this week’s bulletin...

Here is what’s on the menu this Media Monday:

·         SABC news’ viewership woes

·         MMA to represent the “media’ sector at POI Bill oral submissions – hmmm...?

·         Red Bull ad ruffles Christian feathers

Why is SABC news loosing viewers?

The Sunday Times newspaper reported yesterday that “(t)he SABC has lost over one million viewers across all three channels in the prime-time news slot in the past six months.” The newspaper reported that this was according the audience ratings by the South African Advertising Research Foundation (Saarf). But what can be attributed to these audience losses?

The public broadcaster’s spokesperson, Kaizer Kganyago, said the slight drop in audiences could be attributed to a changing media landscape. Kganyago also indicated that existing players have expanded their channel offerings, thus also tapping into the SABC’s audience strongholds. By this he was referring to the introduction of Mzansi Magic by subscription pay-channel DStv, which he says has introduced low-tier bouquets, competing directly with the SABC.

But media expert, Arthur Goldstuck, Managing Director (MD) of World Wide Worx, felt the decline in audiences was directly linked to poor content, which he said was a result of lack of leadership at the SABC and lack of vision by the broadcaster.

The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) also voiced its opinion on the state of viewership affairs at the SABC. The union said it was “not surprised by these developments as the SABC, particularly its television component has long ceased to be a public broadcaster and turned itself into a self-promotion propaganda instrument for certain factions.” Serious allegations right there, hey? But we can’t quite get deeper into that as we don’t know the basis of their allegations. Perhaps this is something Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) could do some research on to determine whether the allegations are founded or not.

The union also congratulated the million viewers or so who have rejected the public broadcaster’s propaganda and moved to competing free-to-air television channel, e.tv. Also something that advocates of public broadcasting like The SOS: Support Public Broadcasting Coalition may not like, but hey...

Back to the SABC though, where have its viewers gone? Definitely not to print media as both newspapers and magazines have recorded a decline in readership. So where have they gone to – e.tv, radio, or social media maybe? Maybe you can tell us: why are you not watching SABC prime time news anymore? What do you want changed for you to watch SABC news again? Would it help if, for instance, instead of good old news bulletins they have a Morning Live-type of programme in the evening? Would you watch then? SOS: help the public broadcaster get its viewers back! Send us your views, comments and suggestions on Facebook and Twitter...

The chosen 18 to make Info Bill oral submission

The Protection of State Information Bill (aka Info Bill or secrecy bill) continues to be a hotly-contested issue, especially between government and the ruling ANC on one hand, and the media and civil society groups on the other. After being voted on in Parliament the Bill then made its way to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) to deliberate on. The NCOP decided on a public consultation drive on the Bill, receiving in the process around 293 written submissions. The NCOP ad hoc committee on the Bill will next listen to the final hearings on the Bill in the form of oral presentations expected to start on 27 March 2012.

Eighteen organisations have been shortlisted to make the oral presentations, with only two “media-related” submissions included in the shortlist, thanks to ANC MPs’ insistence. This resulted in the South African Editors’ Forum (Sanef) and MMA being shortlisted to represent the media sector in the oral submission process. Other organisations were excluded because their names contained the words “media” or “press”, such as Print Media SA and Media Institute of SA.

But MMA does not represent the media sector as it is a watchdog NGO that monitors ethical and fair journalism for the advancement of human rights issues. What that means then is that Sanef will be the lone media voice to speak on behalf of the media at the hearings. The ANC reportedly also tried to exclude the Right2Know Campaign from the list of organisations that will make presentations.

The long and short of it is that there will be more hearings on the Information Bill. Haven’t there been enough processes on the Bill already? Isn’t the process being overly prolonged? Some of us are beginning to loose track of what is happening with the Bill and when, and hope that does not ultimately translate into apathy around the Bill. And we also hope this lengthy process is not some sort of a tactic for people to loose interest - or is it? What do you think? Facebook and Tweet us your thoughts...

Red Bull’s “Jesus Walks on Water” ad sparks Christian uproar

Energy drink maker, Red Bull, decided to shake up things a little bit with a campaign that would probably give it wings over the Easter period. Little did they know that the campaign will cause an uproar that would see the South African Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) receive nearly 400 complaints, and calls for the ad to be cancelled by the SA Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC). Or maybe Red Bull knew the campaign would cause the uproar, and went ahead with it intentionally, for a public relations (PR) spin off.

Red Bull eventually succumbed to pressure and was on Thursday reported to have dropped the ad but it goes without saying that the massive PR spin off they received in the space from the ad being aired on Monday evening until the ad was dropped was huge. Was it intentional? Maybe! If it was, bravo to them and the ad agency they used for achieving intended results. But of course, some don’t see it in such a positive light, saying that Red Bull may have just put itself on the other side of the line where Christians get mocked, and that Red Bull may not be seen as a company making fun at Jesus, but at Christians for following him.

But one Media Matters team member indicated that the whole thing may have just been an intentional PR stunt as the ad lacked what Red Bull is and has always been about – the wiiings! The ad has the “Red Bull gives you wiiings” line but has no flying or wings in it. Kind of dry, isn’t it? So, that may have been intentional then – move away from the conventional Red Bull way of doing things, cross the line, ruffle a few (read many) feathers, thus be on everyone’s lip metaphorically as many were talking about it on social networks, and eventually be on everyone’s lip literally as the spin off turns into sales. But anyway, we’ll leave it to you to give us your views on the campaign and it being pulled ultimately. Facebook and Tweet us your views and comments...

On the menu this Media Monday:

·         Icasa DTT hearings – why you should care?

·         Malema’s stance on media

·         SABC to push up licence fees

·         Did the broadcasters’ pettiness cloud the SAFTAs?

Icasa hearings underway

South Africa’s broadcasting regulator, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa), is holding public hearings on the Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) Draft Regulations this week starting today (Monday, 9 March 2012). This follows the publishing of the Amendment of the Digital Migration Policy by the Minister of Communications, Dina Pule, on 7 February 2012.

Interested parties expected to make presentations at the hearings include The SOS: Support Public Broadcasting Coalition, Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) and the public broadcaster, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC).

The MMA presentation will be based on the submission it made in November last year, which highlights the organisation’s areas of concerns with the draft regulations and recommendations. According to Kate Skinner, Coordinator of The SOS Coalition, the SOS calls for a greater diversity of players thus for the licensing of new players, and for Icasa to do research into competition issues including market analyses to  ensure the sustainability of new players.

But why is this important to you? Why should you care?

This will actually form the basis of digital TV, which those in the know say will open the spectrum and allow for more TV and radio channels for public consumption. One current channel’s worth of spectrum will buy you a minimum of six channels, or up to 18 depending on the compression rate of broadcaster.

So what does this mean? Does it mean that e.tv will have even more channels to broadcast wrestling on, or have channels dedicated to nothing else but wrestling, or soft porn? Or does it mean that maybe e.tv will have their 24-hour news channel made available on a public platform? Does it mean that the SABC will have more channels available to dedicate to soapies and recycled old dramas? Or a 24-hour channel dedicated to the Premier Soccer League (PSL) maybe? Or maybe we will be subjected to even more repeats?

When we finally migrate to DTT, what sort of programming would you like to hear or see on your radio and TV in the digital age? Who do you think should be producing content to fill up those channels? Facebook and Tweet us your suggestions...

Malema wants media regulated

In a live interview with Vuyo Mvoko on the SABC’s current affairs show, Asikhulume, this past Sunday, the suspended African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) president Julius Malema called for the media to be regulated. Malema also said the media will destroy our democracy after his views were asked on the ANC’s proposed media appeals tribunal (MAT), and called for a body which has got teeth and will bite as the Press Ombudsman has failed dismally.

In its 52^nd Conference resolutions, the ANC has reiterated its call for the media appeals tribunal, saying that the media should be regulated by an independent body to prevent political or commercial interference. The ruling party has also released a statement indicating that many have misinterpreted its proposal for the MAT as a call for a state or government regulation of the media.

Was Malema’s call for the media to be regulated in-line with ANC policy on the regulation of the media? Did he also advocate for a media regulatory system that is free of political or statutory interference as well? And your general thoughts on his accusation to the media as democracy destroying, and call for media to be regulated?

Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter with your views...

TV licence fee hike on the cards?

The SABC is planning to raise TV licence fees to boost its revenue derived from this source, according to reports. The planned increase, however, is delayed and still pending government approval. Currently the fee sits at R250 per year and we can’t even remember the last time the amount was raised, if any, but is it justified?

In its presentation to Parliament recently, the SABC asked government to relax conditions on the loan it gave them. This, as the broadcaster failed to adhere to terms set by the National Treasury on the loan. The SABC also indicated that it was setting aside more money to pay its staff after initially saying they would cut the staff bill?

. There have been widespread reports of graft at the SABC over the past years as well.

Given the above facts and that, as it is, people are a little bit reluctant to pay their TV licences citing issues of programming, do you feel that the TV licences money is well-spent by the public broadcaster?  Do you feel that the basis on which the SABC is hiking TV licence fees is legitimate? If you are already paying your TV licence, will you be willing to pay a little more, and why? And, if you are not paying your TV licence, and not even planning to, why?Tell us how you feel about the planned increase on Facebook and Twitter.

Broadcasters’ SAFTA controversy

The SA film and television industry was celebrated this past weekend during an award ceremony which is held annually, the South African Film and Televisions Awards (SAFTAs). But the celebrations were not without any controversy, especially following the decision by free-to-air TV station, e.tv, to pull out its programming and presenter participation from the award nominations only three days before the ceremony.

This happened on the backdrop of another popular SABC show, 7de Laan, also getting chop from the SAFTAs. The reason for that was that 7de Laan had not submitted any entries for the Saftas this year and were not eligible as a result.

Back to e.tv pulling out of the awards, reports are that the broadcaster was unhappy at the fact that several judges on the panel were SABC people, and that e.tv felt that they haven’t won at the SAFTAs, for a while, despite their great storylines and nominations. Other stories doing the rounds were that a host of SABC soap stars were invited to the awards nominees’ party, and only three from e.tv’s two soaps.

It goes without saying that the SAFTAs are meant to celebrate the greatest content production and great storylines that SA has to offer. But isn’t the recognition of the greatest of SA’s artistic creations messed up by such pettiness between competing broadcasters? Are the reasons cited by e.tv enough to pull out of the awards? Are things that bad at the SAFTAs that even broadcasters are left with no choice but to pull out? What implications do these stunts and pettiness have on SA’s creative sector?

Facebook and Tweet us your comments on this issue...

And here is what’s on offer this Media Monday:

·         We The People – celebrations for SA constitution heighten;

·         More crucial appointments at SABC, the Minister’s role questioned; and,

·         Icasa’s broadcasting regulatory review underway.

The time is now to declare your love for SA’s constitution!

We The People, an initiative by Media Monitoring Africa (MMA), continues to call for all South Africans to tell the world why they love their constitution. The aim of this initiative is simple: to get over a million South Africans to tell the world why they love their constitution, and that’s where you come in. Details on how you can help a bit later...

This is in celebration of our constitution as this February marks the 15^th anniversary of this great and important document, which is an excellent model for many countries across Africa and the world over. Need we also add that it is also the most advanced constitution in the world? But surely you must know that by now – so, what are you waiting for? Go on and tell the world why it is such a great document and why you love it so much!

Here is how:

§  Go to We The People website and post your messages there

§  Like the We The People Facebook page and post your messages on their wall

§  Follow We The People on Twitter and tweet your declaration of love to our constitution – don’t forget to include the hashtags #WeThePeople and #LoveOurConstitution while you’re at it

§  Send anSMS to 078 949 3735 –FREE SMS DO APPLY by the way!

So there you have it – easy as that! Like the Director at MMA William Bird indicated, the Americans stage a party every year in celebration of their constitution, so why can’t we, since we have one of the best constitutions in the world? You can also Facebook and Tweet us your undying love for our constitution and we will gladly direct your messages to “We The People”.

Crucial SABC posts filled, at the Minister’s help, of course!

Following announcement by the Communications Ministry, of the appointment of Ms. Lulama Mokhobo as new Group Chief Executive Officer (GCEO) at the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) over a month ago, the parastatal looks to be taking the filling up of top posts as a matter of urgency. In her interview with The New Age, Ms. Mokhobo clearly indicated that key positions needed to be filled at the broadcaster. And that’s what’s happening!

Attempts have been made to fill the second most powerful post at the SABC – that of the Chief Operating Officer (COO) – which caused quite a stir with allegations that the post was kept internal and reserved for one Hlaudi Motsoeneng, said to not be suitably qualified.

Communications Minister Dina Pule intervened, calling for the SABC to put its search for a new COO on ice and to follow a normal and wider appointment process. And the latest, Dina Pule announced the appointment of Ms. Gugu Duda as the new Chief Financial Officer (CFO) at the SABC.

The SOS: Support Public Broadcasting Coalition welcomed the appointment of a new CEO at the SABC, but was concerned about the Minister’s playing such a great role in the appointments of CEO, COO and CFO at the public broadcaster. According to the SOS Coalition, the Minister’s role in the approval of key SABC appointments was against best international practice, with respect to public broadcasting regulation, and that the SABC board should take sole responsibility of these appointments without any input from the Ministry.

The Coalition said the same thing of the Minister’s intervention into the COO fracas, and reiterated the same concern with regards to the latest appointment at the SABC – that of the CFO.

Is that cause for concern? Is the Ministry of Communications overplaying its hand in SABC politics and appointments? Do both the SABC board and the Ministry give ear to SOS’s concerns and take them seriously – should they, and why? Should the independence of key appointments at the SABC be taken with a pinch of salt in light of the Minister’s continued intervention? Do the appointments amount to political interference? Why is the SABC board not solely taking up the action of filling up key appointments? What does this say about the credibility of the new SABC leadership?

Help us with answers to these questions via Facebook and Twitter...

Icasa holds conference on broadcasting regulatory framework

The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) is hosting an international conference to review South Africa’s broadcasting regulatory framework. The Conference, currently underway in Sandton Johannesburg, aims to review the existing analogue broadcasting regulatory frameworks to be in line with the digital era.

The Conference, held over two days and ending tomorrow, will be addressed by renowned International Speakers from Canada, Australia, Isle of Man, United Kingdom and Belgium, and will also include presentations from South African Chapter 9 institutions, broadcasting organisations, manufacturing sector, consumer and communication forums/organisations.

The SOS: Support Public Broadcasting questioned in its newly-launched weekly newsletter, Our SABC: A Review of South African Broadcasting Issues, whether or not Icasa’s broadcasting policy review amounted to “placing the cart before the horse”. SOS and R2K (the Right2Know Campaign) raised concerns about Icasa’s broadcasting regulation review taking place in the context of an outdated policy and legislation.

But maybe before we also ‘place the cart before the horse’ we need to ask if the people out there know who Icasa is and what it does? Do you know of Icasa and how it works? And the broadcasting regulatory framework that is being reviewed: do you know what it is and what the purpose of it all is?