Oral Submission on the Public Service Broadcasting Bill (2009)

by the Alternative Information and Development Centre (AIDC)

& Workers’ World Media Productions (WWMP)

DOC Oral Hearings16 November 2010

Gallagher Estate

The Organisations

• The AIDC was formed 12 years ago in response to the democratic transition in South Africa and the new opportunities and challenges it brought to those seeking greater social justice within the democracy. AIDC aims to strengthen the movement for social justice through the production of alternative media and by enhancing the institutional capacity of community media organisations and the communication capacity of progressive civil society organisations that facilitate a dialogue, giving voice to the poor and marginalised, locally and internationally.

The Organisations

• Workers’ World Media Productions (WWMP) is a non-profit, independent labour media production house with offices in Johannesburg and Cape Town and was formed in 1999. Our major and flagship project is the Labour-Community Radio Project that involves the setting up and development of 1-hour labour shows on over 40 community radio (CR) stations in all parts of South Africa, particularly in working class and poor communities based in urban, peri-urban and rural settings. The project was developed in partnership with the trade union movement, consisting of the three trade union federations (Cosatu, Fedusa and Nactu) and the National Community Radio Forum (NCRF).

The Organisations

• Both organisations are members of the Civil Society Coalition - the SOS and the National Community Radio Forum (NCRF). We endorse the submissions made by these bodies.

The Bill & Community Broadcasting

The attainment of community radio within a democratic media legislative framework during the post-Apartheid South Africa represented an important victory and gain, especially for historically disadvantaged black working class people.

However, it is our concern that this important democratic gain is being diluted and systematically eroded by the current situation.

The Bill & Community BroadcastingSince its inception internationally, community broadcasting

has sought to foster popular education and in order to ensure this, 3 fundamental principled aspects evolved:

• Non-profit making• Community ownership and control • Community participation

However, it is our contention that the current context of poverty-stricken communities and a lack of legislated, consistent and guaranteed material support for community broadcasters have undermined these principles.

The Bill & Community BroadcastingGenerous provisions were made in the RDP for community

media, with a specific mention of broadcasting;

“5.14.4. An affirmative action programme, consistent with the best experiences in the world, must be put into place to empower communities and individuals from previously disadvantaged sectors of society. This must include: mechanisms to make available resources needed to set up broadcasting and printing enterprises at a range of levels; training and upgrading, and civic education to ensure that communities and individuals recognise and exercise their media rights.” (ANC, 1994, p133).

The Bill & Community Broadcasting

Similarly, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC, 1998) recommended;

“that the state should promote a multiplicity of media voices by establishing a legislative environment and state subsidies to encourage the growth of grassroots publications and local broadcasting stations.”

The Bill & Community Broadcasting

However the state has left the CR sector to its own devices to compete for commercial revenue and survive in the capitalist media market.

Icasa and its predecessor, the IBA did not pay much attention to financial viability of community broadcasting. There was and still is no legislated state support for community radio.

The Bill & Community Broadcasting

In most poor communities, community broadcasters have become dependent on advertising and sponsorship from government, religious and commercial sources – consequently undermining their independence and causing them to deviate from their community role. Many community radio stations have too much pop music and allow too much prime air-time to interest groups who are able to sponsor – religious groups, government and big business.

The Bill & Community Broadcasting

Today in South Africa, the majority of community radio stations do not play a real developmental and transformation role, despite the fact that several socio-economic facets of the Apartheid poverty legacy remain after more than sixteen years of democracy. Many appear to have become radio stations that are functionally based on a community radio “mandate” that fit in with the legislative requirements for securing and maintaining broadcast licences. In real terms their activities, operations and content seem barely to ensure that they adhere to the three principles outlined previously, let alone playing a facilitating role that promotes change that represents the interests of their communities.

The Bill & Community Broadcasting

Most community radio stations do not make serious attempts at promoting democratic community ownership, control and day to day content generation for broadcasts. Programme content and broadcasts are largely the prerogative of the full-time staff and volunteers who do cover issues of the community but in most cases, not generated by the community itself. Community radio in South Africa is therefore not alternative in its methods and remains in line with the top-down and cascading approach of the commercial and public broadcasters. The commercial orientation as a result of the absence of self-generated and/or state subsidy is the material basis for this.

Our Recommendations

The Public Service Broadcasting Bill should not include a Charter for Community Broadcasting.

– An independent community broadcasting sector should be governed by its own Charter.

• The NCRF Charter should serve as a basis for developing a Charter for the Sector.

However, we are mindful of the state of the sector where adherence to community broadcasting principles are shallow or non-existent.

Our Recommendations

We welcome and in principle support the proposed Public Broadcasting Fund.

The DOC should conduct research establishing the amount of money required to support an independent community broadcast sector. Our estimates suggest an annual fund of R300million.

The Treasury should allocate sufficient revenue to the Fund and ensure that the sector does not have to compete with the SABC, Sentech, and others for access to a common pool of resources.

Our Recommendations

But we also suggest other funding sources could be more appropriate for community broadcasting and propose an incentivised legislated community broadcasting funding scheme that rewards adherence to governance programming content guidelines of the adopted community broadcasting charter.

Our Recommendations

A legislated financial and material support mechanism for Community Radio & TV to include the following revenue generating options:

• A municipal levy of households within which the radio/TV station is based. This should be clear CR station annual “licence fee” ranging from R10 – R20 per annum.

• The DOC to supply capital equipment and regular technology upgrades.

• The MDDA to support programming development.

• Sentech tariff structures and rates to be adjusted to be more appropriate for community broadcasters.

Our Recommendations

A more detailed legislated guideline for community ownership control and governance.

The provision for community AGM’s to elect their CR station boards is too general and open to abuse by interest groups. We propose a structured approach with community sectors that are to be organisationally represented onto the board much like the CTV model for the following sectors; Sport, Labour, Community based organisations (CBOs), NGOs, Education, Arts and community media

• Each sector nominates two people to represent them on the board. Provision should also be made for up to 3 additional persons to be elected from the general body.

Our Recommendations

The following interest groups should be excluded from membership and governance:

• Business, Political and Religious

This is due to their sectional or sectarian interests that do not support the general interests of the community and their relative power to dominate ownership and control of the community broadcaster.

However, these groups are to be included in areas of

programming.

Our Recommendations

– Legislation should not limit the number of representatives on projects’ Boards.

– Broadcasters should be free to develop, but obligated to have policies and transparent mechanisms that enable community members to shape the overall programming and editorial policy of the station.

• Broadcasters should be free to develop, but obligated to have policies and transparent mechanisms that enable community members to access the airwaves – including producing and hosting programmes.

Our Recommendations

The concepts of a developmental state and the “development goals of the Republic” are contested by different interests in society; the developmental goals of the wealthy minority are often at odds with the developmental interests of the poor and working class majority.

• The Bill should rather reaffirm the values, and role, and purpose of the Sector contained in the NCRF Charter.

Our Recommendations

We propose that the following sections in the bill be done away with as they infringe upon the independence and freedom of expression of broadcasters:

A Charter for Community Broadcasters which prescribes that: • The primary role of community radio is to provide

information about the municipality and government and what it is doing.

• Suggests that municipal officials can sit on Governing Councils.

• Stations must forge partnerships with municipalities.

• Stations must be located in municipal offices.

Our Recommendations

• Gives the Minister Of Communications powers to issue directives to the SABC and community media on “any matter connected to public service broadcasting” if the entity is unable to “perform its functions as prescribed in this Act”.

WE THANK THE DOC FOR ALLOWING US THIS OPPORTUNITY.