The interception and withdrawal of the SABC bill, which would have potentially hindered the fast-tracking of getting it out of its financial woes, should be welcomed as better strategies are needed to sustain the public broadcaster.
Public consultations were already under way on the bill that sought to restructure the board, make provisions for better accountability structures and change the funding model. It also proposed that the TV licence system be replaced by a household levy, imposing another tax on already heavily taxed South Africans.
Last week, communications and digital technologies minister Solly Malatsi pulled the bill as he deems it unfit for purpose, but also raised a concern that it would give too much power to a minister and afford them comprehensive rights that might interfere with the editorial independence of the broadcaster — something that has happened before.
The main criticisms of the bill are that it sets a three-year target for the rejuvenation of the funding model, but also the proposition that revenue injection should still come from advertisers, subscribers, fees from licensing and other methods that have proved to be ineffective, given the dire financial position it is in.
Political organisations such as the EFF, AfriForum and the South African National Editors’ Forum, among others, have criticised this bill on concerns that it would invite undue interference and possible cadre deployment.
Writing to National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza, Malatsi labelled the bill “totally flawed”, adding: “This approach does not meet the urgency required to stabilise the broadcaster and risks perpetuating an outdated licensing structure that will not provide the SABC with the necessary resources to fulfil its mandate.”
Would it have been fair to try to force every household to pay an imposed levy? What use is continuing with an outdated funding model? Thus the canning of the bill is sound, and instead of this approach, the broadcaster should work on strategies to monetise its offerings and operate a portion of the content on a commercial basis. Equally, public mandate news shows should rather be funded by the state, as it is a mandate that it needs to execute anyway.
Why try to fix something that is working well? In the almost repealed Broadcasting Act of 1999, directors are appointed through a transparent process by parliament and the interviews and nominations are done publicly. Political organisations such as the EFF, AfriForum and the South African National Editors’ Forum, among others, have criticised this bill on concerns that it would invite undue interference and possible cadre deployment.
The SABC is known to have been interfered with in the past, with recent allegations being that a now removed board member, Mpho Tsedu, attempted to interfere with editorial operations. He had allegedly assigned the news department to cover some stories while also imposing which ones to not cover. This resulted in a complaint to the board by the editor-in-chief Moshoeshoe Monare.
What should be a priority is the funding model of the broadcaster, not structural and operational systems. It is therefore encouraged that better financial strategies be introduced while keeping the SABC free from interference. Poor households must not be penalised for trying to access information which enables their meaningful participation in our democracy. A three-year plan would have been unreasonable for the already cash-strapped entity.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.