On the eve of the 1994 democratic breakthrough, Nelson Mandela addressed the International Press Institute general assembly in Cape Town and lamented the lack of diversity and the concentrated nature of South Africa’s media.
“South African media are still largely dominated by persons drawn almost exclusively from one racial group,” he said. “With the exception of The Sowetan, the senior editorial staffs of all South Africa’s daily newspapers are cast from the same racial mould. They are white, they are male, they are from a middle-class background, they tend to share a very similar life experience. The same holds true for the upper echelons of the electronic media, again with a very few recent exceptions.”
Mandela said it was “clearly inequitable that in a country whose population is overwhelmingly black (85%), the principal players in the media have no knowledge of the life experience of that majority”.
He articulated the aspirations of his imminent democratic government for a media landscape that would “ensure a measure of diversity truly reflective of the rich tapestry of races, colours, creeds and cultures that is South Africa, especially in ownership”.
Thirty years into democracy, Mandela’s vision remains a pipe dream. The print media edifice is still primarily dominated by four oligopolies, namely Media24, Arena Holdings, Sekunjalo's Independent Media and Caxton. Independent Media has been in gradual decline, and reports suggest that others are also on the ropes, struggling for survival in a stagnant economy.
Some may be unable to remain afloat, as suggested by a jobs bloodbath within the sector. There is a genuine possibility that some of these media houses may eventually collapse as those with deep pockets consolidate. Look no further than the movement of prominent bylines to appreciate this dynamic.
Considering the rising number of internet and social media users, the transition to digital publishing is unavoidable. But this is scant consolation as there is a notable overlap between online and print media. Online-only news platforms are compelled to compete with more well-resourced outlets controlled by legacy media houses. Despite the surge in online media, it still grapples with challenges related to disinformation and misinformation (fake news).
The counterbalancing role of community media, effectively complemented by media such as the SABC, with a public mandate, remains crucial for the marginalised. But the floundering SABC exacerbates the situation. It has faced mismanagement and allegations of political interference, resulting in staff retrenchment. Nevertheless, it continues to be the country’s most accessible and popular broadcast medium, with radio stations broadcasting in all official languages complemented by television channels.
While the emergence of the commercial free-to-air television channel e.tv and some radio stations has contributed to the diversity of public media, the commercial media landscape remains concentrated and controlled by big conglomerates.
Media and elections
The issue of media transformation should not only be elevated in the context of elections. While free and independent media (another value-laden concept) are crucial in ensuring free and fair elections, this role extends beyond the electoral period. Nevertheless, it is the media that facilitate the participatory process by enabling voters to engage in public discourse and access pertinent information about parties, policies and candidates, allowing them to make informed choices.
The significance of reportage leading up to the election process should not be overlooked. Numerous studies have illustrated that over the past three decades South Africa’s media has played a pivotal role in influencing policy debates focused on economic transformation for the benefit of the majority, who were marginalised under decades of apartheid and colonisation.
These studies have uncovered that the media operates not only as an economic resource but also as an ideological tool, given its ownership and control by individuals with political and economic interests. Consequently, it has tended to align with and advocate for the interests of its owners.
Despite post-apartheid efforts to drive media transformation, the media remains rooted in apartheid-like economic and ideological rationalities, and it still operates within Western news values and a neoliberal paradigm. Consequently, it is unsurprising that its reporting on ideological discourse tends to delegitimise the concerns of the dispossessed. Even on distant issues, such as the war in Ukraine, inherent biases exist, largely influenced by its positionality within global capitalist power structures.
Token transformation
Scholars such as Prinola Govenden have characterised the transformation of a segment of our media as token transformation. This is because it seems as though black individuals have replaced white individuals in certain ownership and staffing aspects, but not in a manner that meaningfully disrupts class continuities. Essentially, there is a persistence of white racial power at the top of the hierarchy, while this transformation must also contend with the influence of neoliberalism.
The 2019 Mail & Guardian Data Desk research revealed that, similar to many corporations, the South African media was predominantly run by whites. The analysis of ownership structures, demographics, and funding models indicated that the boards of media houses were controlled by whites. Equally, the top management structures of influential media institutions also remained largely under the control of whites. The research disclosed that, at the time, the top management structures were:
By perpetuating these control structures in the newsroom, the media is constrained in its representation of issues and the lived experiences of the marginalised
- amaBhungane (100% white);
- Caxton (89% white);
- Media24 (50% white);
- Daily Maverick (72% white);
- Primedia (50% white);
- Independent (31% white); and
- Tiso Blackstar (33% white).
By perpetuating these control structures in the newsroom, the media is constrained in its representation of issues and the lived experiences of the marginalised. It is little wonder that the anti-privatisation strikes by Cosatu in 2002 were perceived as impediments to the favoured neoliberal shift.
This perspective was also evident in the discourse on nationalisation, where claims were often made, with little evidence, that advocating any form of nationalisation (whether it be mines or the Reserve Bank) had a detrimental effect on investor confidence. Many media reports emphasised these unsubstantiated assertions, highlighting the narrative that the debate discouraged investors.
This narrow neoliberal frame is employed in the stories rather than recognising the fundamental issues of the dispossessed people, whose views are severely underrepresented. A media of this nature will struggle to gain the trust of the majority beyond its established and traditional audience, the suburban middle class. The lack of transformation and diversity inevitably leads to its association with sectarian interests.
These limitations are likely to have a profound impact on the media’s role, diminishing its capacity to effectively fulfil its democratic function, particularly during the electoral period.
The constraints arising from the lack of transformation and diversity hinder the media’s ability to serve as a reliable source of information, promote diverse perspectives, and engage with a broader audience, ultimately compromising the democratic ideals it is intended to uphold.
• Radebe is an author, associate professor in the University of Johannesburg’s department of strategic communication and director of the Centre for Data and Digital Communications
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.