Print and digital task team releases their blunt assessment on race and gender in ownership, management.
Analysis: The Print and Digital Media Transformation task team has released its report into transformation in the major press groups. The report is an important step as it forces the industry to deal with issues it has not taken seriously.
It is a blunt assessment and an indictment of the extent of racial and gender transformation in ownership and management structures, which remain white and male. The task team reveals a press out of step demographically with the rest of the country is bound to have legitimacy problems. Its proposals that companies set annual transformation targets is good. In the wake of the Press Freedom Commission, it is a pity both processes began when faced with the prospect of regulation and parliamentary insistence on a transformation charter.
Too many in the press rushed to label these criticisms as attacks on press freedom and, undeniably, the threat of statutory regulation was. But many were reluctant to acknowledge they needed to get their houses in order. However, there are significant blind spots in the report. The task team rejected the idea of a charter, which would have allowed the press to move beyond a narrow definition of transformation that equated it with Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE), and that relied on the generic scorecards for its measurement.
This locks the press into an elite form of transformation, where racial and gender substitution becomes the main indicator of transformation, rather than diversification and democratisation. The media, including the press, could be said to have transformed when it reflects the society in which it operates, in terms of race, class, gender and sexual orientation, age, linguistic and geographic distribution.
While replacing white people and men with black people and women is a necessary condition of transformation, it is insufficient. Yet the report missed an important opportunity to challenge the dominant definition of transformation. Granted, the report does devote space to the importance of diversity as a component of transformation, and notes allegations of anti-competitive, diversity-reducing practices by the large press groups. It also raises questions about the effectiveness of the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) in fostering media diversity.
While it does hint at the press structure being oligopolistic, it doesn't elaborate. Neither does it delve into the extent to which diversity could be said to exist, and unlike the seven elements of the BBBEE scorecard, it makes no proposals for specific targets to ensure diversification. It is disappointing to note the task team ducked the thorny issue of transformation in the most important area of the press's operations, namely editorial content. The report claims the PFC dealt with content-related matters, which is incorrect: that process only dealt with content regulation.
The task team's terms of reference are ambiguous on whether it should address content, which is probably because, according to the task team report, "the print industry itself believes while it has demonstrably dealt with its reason for existence as evidenced by its products, it has not come to grips with the transformation of its business side".
The press has decided for itself content transformation is not an issue. Clearly, individuals and organisations wanted to be heard on this matter, and as a result made submissions on it, but the team's silence means voices have been lost. There can be little doubt editorial content is more reflective of the society in which it operates than it was under apartheid. This is because newsrooms are more reflective of demographics than ownership or management. Yet two reports raise questions about the depth of content transformation.
The first on youth produced by researchers, including Media Tenor, and led by Rhodes University, found over an 18-month period few issues that mattered to young people were included in media coverage. Coverage over this period focused on the (mis) conduct of the-former ANC Youth League leaders Julius Malema and Floyd Shivambu and controversies surrounding the National Youth Development Agency.
The young surveyed (a thousand in four provinces) rated media credibility poorly, lamenting the lack of in-depth, relevant, coverage. Largely, the media failed to be a resource for young people developing civic and political identities, with radio and television being rated more highly than newspapers and magazines. Yet respondents had high levels of trust in the media, in contrast to levels of trust in public institutions and parties. The second report was released by Media Tenor to coincide with women's month highlighted the perennial problem of womens' voices being underrepresented.
Focusing mainly on TV, the report found women accounted for 14% of coverage, and women remain underrepresented globally. These reports point to a paradox in the media transformation picture that the report remains largely silent on, and which has particular implications for the press. Newspapers are on the cutting edge of investigative journalism which benefits society. But much of this reporting focuses on the (mis)doings of political and economic elites, and many still do not see themselves and their immediate issues in much of this content.
It seems fair to say 19 years into democracy social inequalities continue to be reproduced in and through the media. The distributional rewards of transformation have been spread unequally across society, and this is especially so with respect to the press as it has a smaller and more upmarket footprint than broadcasting.
South Africa's public sphere is still very much an elite public sphere. This is dangerous as it can lead to a society unable to see itself. The country risks becoming aware of a mounting crisis at the base of society only when there is a social explosion: a Wesselton, Ficksburg or Marikana. Clearly, the task team's report should be welcomed. But it has narrowed down the debate about press transformation.
KEY POINTS:The Print and Digital Media Transformation Task Team has just released its much anticipated report into transformation in the major press groups. It is a blunt assessment and an indictment of the extent of racial and gender transformation in their ownership and management structures, which remain far too white and male.
Coming in the wake of the Press Freedom Commission, which proposed key changes to the system of press self-regulation, it is a pity that both processes were initiated by the press only when they faced the prospect of statutory regulation and parliamentary insistence on a transformation charter.
The media, including the press, could be said to have transformed when it reflects the society in which it operates, in terms of race, class, gender and sexual orientation, age, linguistic and geographic distribution.
While it does hint at the press structure being oligopolistic, it doesn't elaborate. It makes no specific findings on levels of press concentration.
There can be little doubt that editorial content is much more reflective of the society in which it operates than it was under apartheid.
Until there is a proper debate about the extent to which South Africans see themselves in the media, some of the most important lacunae in press transformation will remain unacknowledged, and hence unaddressed.
Caption: WHERE IS THE CHANGE?: The Print and Digital Media Transformation task team's approach has locked the press into an elite form of transformation where racial and gender substitution becomes the main indicator of transformation rather than diversification and democratisation, the author says.
PICTURE: GALLO IMAGES
By Jane Duncan
Prof Duncan is Highway Africa chairperson of Media and Information Society, School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University
Article Source: The New Age