Presentation by GCIS to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications

27 March 2001

Establishment of a Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA)

Introduction

"Back to basics" is an injunction that is bound to become relevant during the course of any policy-making process touching on a complex variety of interests.

And so it is with the process towards the establishment of a Media Development & Diversity Agency.

This is not our first presentation on this matter to the Portfolio Committee.

The previous occasion was our annual appearance before the committee to explain what we had done and were planning to do with our budget.

This time is different.

Then, there was much of planning, research and consultation under way.

The fruits of the work that has been done since then is represented by the draft government position paper on the MDDA, published last November. Stakeholders and interested sectors and individuals have made written submissions in response to the paper.

Then, the committee was calling us to account. Now the committee is providing a forum for a public airing of views on our proposals

As the project has moved from broad principle to concrete proposal, as government has formulated a position and interacted with players and interests, the truth as always has become even more evident, that to move from deliberation to decision and implementation concentrates the mind.

So this is indeed a good time to go back to basics.

This hearing provides the space for the airing of the variety of views before the matter is fully debated for finalisation. For the Parliamentary Committee to engage the process at this early stage means that public representatives will themselves be active participants in the evolution of the final product. So we make our submission fully aware that the robust debate and negotiations on the substance of the matter have yet to happen.

We therefore thank the Portfolio Committee for providing this opportunity, even as we are busy analysing the submissions and as we continue to interact with all involved – about which our Minister will say something later today.

Origins

Let us therefore start by going back to the origins of this project.

The concept of the MDDA is rooted in the founding consensus of our democracy. At its heart is the understanding that our nation’s legacy of imbalances and exclusions had to be overcome through a partnership of all sectors of society if our vision of a new society is to become a reality for al South Africans.

This challenge, as it affected the media, was taken up by Comtask, the Task Group on Government Communications, composed of widely respected media and communications experts. Its 1996 report recommended that government should

"Facilitate the process of setting up a statutorily recognised media development agency comprised of independently elected trustees, which agency will operate a statutorily recognised subsidy scheme for community and independent media in South Africa".

Cabinet agreed, recognising this would enhance the rights of freedom of expression and access to information. It accorded with a call in the Reconstruction and Development Programme for government to "encourage the development of all tiers of media – public, community and private" in order to guarantee "active exchange of information and opinion among all members of society".

Comtask’s recommendation drew on the experience of civil society attempts to form such a body. The Independent Media Diversity Trust, which relied on voluntary contributions from donors and the media industry, eventually folded due to lack of funding.

Cabinet last November adopted the Position Paper with which Honourable Members are familiar.

By the February 28 deadline, 22 submissions were received from organisations and individuals: They came from:

• media owners and managers – Print Media South Africa; Johnnic; M24, Caxton, National Association of Broadcasters, Primedia and Mnet;
• editors - through SANEF;
• advertising and marketing – AAA, the Association of Marketers and the Freedom of Commercial Speech Trust;
• ICASA, the Development Bank and the National Electronic Media Institute;
• NGOs and community media - the Media Monitoring Project; Open Window Network; Freedom of Expression Institute and the National Community Radio Forum; and the Independent Media Diversity Trust
• IT lawyers Thornton & Morris Attorneys.

Whilst there is a broad range of views, there is also a broad consensus on the need for an initiative to address the imbalances deriving from a past, which it is our responsibility to eradicate.

Some urge a larger body than that proposed with a wider mandate and regulatory powers. Others urge a smaller mechanism and reduced mandate.

Those who made submissions will speak for themselves. We shall take the opportunity to go back to the basics.

The need

The point of departure is that continued progress towards a just and prosperous society requires the active involvement of an informed citizenry. That in turn requires meaningful access for all to information and meaningful freedom of expression. The democratic ideal requires that all sections of society should be afforded platforms to reflect their experience, aspirations and perspectives on life.

This is coupled with the understanding that there are concrete impediments to universal access and freedom of expression deriving from our past of discrimination and underdevelopment. These relate to education; literacy; training; command over resources; ownership; patterns of employment in newsrooms; access to the infrastructure of communication and information; and an advertising base.

Government, through GCIS, is addressing the problem of the communications environment in two ways.

Through the MPCC project GCIS and other departments are extending the infrastructure for government information and services.

The MDDA project is informed by the belief that if we address some of the fundamental problems in the media environment then the issues of content and diversity of opinion will start to take care of themselves.

There have been changes in the media environment since the achievement of democracy. More of those who were previously excluded are owners, managers and senior staff of media companies. Together with the democratic climate and changing readership patterns this has impacted on newspaper content. Radio and television diversity has increased dramatically with the restructuring of broadcasting. Magazines of all types are available, serving a wide diversity of needs and interests. Growth of the Internet has increased access to information exponentially.

But significant as the changes are, they still fall far short of what we all seek. More, such increased diversity as has occurred is accessible only to a minority.

Let us remind ourselves that newspapers are read by less than a fifth of our population, because many do not read and many others cannot afford newspapers or find that the only thing to read in their area are road signs. Most people in rural or peri-urban areas and even cities have access only to national public radio which, by its nature, cannot speak to local concerns and needs. Twenty per cent are beyond the reach of the minimum signal quality required for FM broadcasts.

The question has been posed whether socio-economic development should precede access to diverse media!

It would be foolish to ignore realities, economic or otherwise. But amongst the realities are that access to information and means of communication cannot be separated from social upliftment; and that letting things proceed as they are would be to perpetuate existing imbalances indefinitely – to relegate a great number of citizens to the status of passive recipients of "government delivery", outsiders in the process of creation.

Experience in Europe and elsewhere shows that at times markets need a supplement to promote conditions for wider media consumption and participation by marginalised sectors and interests.

Such are the realities that motivate the establishment of the MDDA.

Independence

Essential to the success of this initiative is that the MDDA operates independently of government, the media industry, donors and beneficiaries

Each stakeholder sector has its particular perspectives in which short-term interests could override the common long-term interest of the beneficiaries and, consequently, society at large.

The proposal therefore is for an MDDA governed by a Board with the confidence of all stakeholders, and accountable to both Parliament and an Annual Review Forum of key stakeholders.

This is explicit in our Minister’s Foreword to the draft Position Paper: the MDDA "will not interfere in the content of any newspaper, television or radio station". Any different interpretation to this firm principle would in fact be a misinterpretation.

Mandate

The MDDA can be no more than a catalyst for development whose result would also be greater diversity

Its main focus would be support for community and small commercial media – including radio, television, print and exploratory initiatives in the ‘new media’.

It is envisaged that it would also commission research, in co-operation with research bodies and tertiary institutions, in an effort to encourage more informed public discussion around the role of the media in a democracy.

We remain convinced that the MDDA should not have regulatory powers and that there are regulatory bodies enough, in particular the Competitions Commission and Icasa as well as industry bodies like the Press "Ombudsman", Broadcast Complaints Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority.

While respecting the independence of these and other bodies the MDDA should work with them to ensure that, where there are common interests, these are pursued; and where there is likelihood for duplication, it is eradicated.

Icasa’s mandate, for example, includes seeking greater diversity in broadcasting but it would be a conflict of interest for it to engage in funding the licensees. By empowering community and small commercial applicants for licenses and enhancing their capacity to operate, when so licensed, the MDDA would help Icasa achieve its objectives without infringing on that body’s exclusive right to determine who should be awarded licenses.

The Competitions Commission has invited industry bodies to assist it in identifying anti-competitive behaviour in the various economic sectors. While the MDDA may not act as complainant, it would make its views known on matters that relate to its core mandate. 

Support and funding

It is proposed that the MDDA will offer funding and non-funding support of various kinds to community and other non-profit media, as well as small commercial media.

By including in legislation or regulations rigorous criteria stipulating who will qualify for support, and under what conditions, and by requiring transparent assessment of applications, the conditions will be created for unbiased administration of support and for anyone to contest the outcome, where the need arises.

Beneficiaries could be media projects that seek to serve a range of marginalised communities. These include, but are not confined to, working class and poor people, women, rural dwellers, youth, marginalised language groups, illiterate people, the aged and people with disabilities.

Support would include direct and indirect subsidies; capacity development and training; emergency funding and media research.

Small commercial media will in the main be assisted with feasibility studies, start-up costs and assisting access to loan finance from other institutions. The MDDA will strive to develop relations with private and public financial institutions so that they will be sensitised to the needs of SMMEs in the media sector.

The proposal that funding of the MDDA comes jointly from government, the media industry and donors in equal measure is informed by the emphasis on the partnership that is needed in a venture of this sensitivity. The financial contribution will give the three partners a joint say in how the agency is operationalised, so as to ensure that the agreed goals and objectives are met.

There are suggestions amongst the submissions received on how to reduce the estimated budget of R300 million over five years without compromising the intended output, and these are being carefully considered. 

Conclusion

Such in broad outline are the main principles embodied in the Position Paper on the MDDA, which it seemed useful to restate on this occasion. We do so conscious of the fact, confirmed in the submissions, that stakeholders are motivated by varying interests to participate in a venture such as the MDDA.

Government has a mandate to promote change in a vital institution and social practice that still, in many respects, is burdened by the legacy of the old order.

Established media houses, marketers and advertisers can only benefit from an expanding readership and listenership and a larger pool of media practitioners.

Community and small commercial media need resources to survive and grow. Some may nurture ambitions of becoming big commercial enterprises.

Donors would benefit from more co-ordination and coherence in the use of funds.

What is crucial is that together we find a way of meeting these different interests in pursuit of a principle around which there is no disagreement.

The rights to freedom of information and freedom of expression, which are inscribed in our constitution, should be enjoyed in practice not only by those who already do so, but by all South Africans.

When we do that we will indeed have come back to basics, and made the choice to act as partners, in realising the provisions of the supreme law of our land.

top