South Africa Media Bills - is the economic structure still super?

In recent years, the ideological form in which men became conscious of the existence of the conflict between politics and economics, and how to fight it out, resulted in the birth of democracy. This means that individuals are free and at liberty to competitively express to achieve material and psychological satisfaction.

The South African media, largely owned by the whites, consists of three newspaper groups Independent Media, AVUSA, formerly known as Johnnic Communications, but now largely owned by a consortium largely dominated by blacks, and Naspers which is basically largely owned by Afrikaners. Each of these media groups have  major mainstream affiliate  newspaper editions which are commonly referred to as the AB press.

The latter is due the discourse around their quality in terms of structure and style of writing which is generally considered formal and serious as opposed to the informal nature of existing tabloids. The best examples of the AB press are the Sunday Times, published by AVUSA, Sunday Independent, published by Independent Media Group and Beeld published by Naspers among others. While AVUSA and Naspers are more local conglomerates, the Independent Media Group is international, linked to the Irish tycoon Tony O’Reilly with business interests from Ireland to many other parts of the world like Europe, Australia and Newzealand.

These newspapers see audiences (active readers) as a potential market, whose interest they need to serve. They deliver ‘active readers’, as a commodity, to advertisers. Businesses see newspapers as an ideal market for reaching potential customers with ideas and commodities, especially, due to the assumption that their target audiences have the financial capacity to buy products and services of high quality and value. The newspapers', audiences and the business community are therefore complexly interlinked in an inseperable  consciousness that solidifies them. The recent introduction of the media Bills in South Africa is thus a big blow regarding their operation.

Although the South African media might be ideologically  polarised, basically due to historical trajectories of racial solidarity, they are united on one thing - they exist to make profits, just like any other product in capitalism, and support a system that guarantees that they continue making profits. Any attempt to disrupt such a consensus is a likely recipe for chaos. These are the reasons why the business community has added its voice to the media bills and tribunal debates. The introduction of the bill is seen as a retrogression as far as democracy is concerned.

In opposing the bill, the South African media acts as a custodian of freedom and guarding against the excesses of political and economic relations that might act as obstacles to freedom. The media always strives to be a neutral player in the delicate relation between politics and economics. This means that the media is sometimes at the mercy of greater political and economic forces which tend to influence and threaten its very fundamental role as the custodian of liberty. The danger of introducing media bills in South Africa, a country that has been lauded in the SADC region for having a free press considering that its neighbours like Zimbabwe have very restrictive media laws, leaves a lot to be desired.

The central issues introduced by the bill is how to strike a balance between press freedom and regulation. Although the debates begun on a higher note, with some politicians and media crying foul, they have taken a new dimension. The business community added their voice to oppose the state's intention hidden behind politicians in parliament. The business community's  contention is that the media bills (if enacted into law) will reduce investor confidence and slow economic growth. One key voice is that of Gareth Ackerman - chairman of one of the biggest retail stores in southern Africa Pick n’Pay.

In an interview with Alec Hogg, a writer and a broadcaster, published on moneyweb.co.za, Ackermans argued that there is a strong awareness in the market that South Africa is in the new space, especially after hosting a successful 2010 world cup. According to him, the bill creates a negative sentiment and driving off investments. It ammounts to muzzling the press in the name of legislation considering that a vibrant press is necessary in the country to tame the growing culture of corruption. If the media is not allowed to talk and say what it needs to say, be it good or bad, then it could actually have a negative impact on business as a whole in South Africa.

Such powerful discourses beginning to emerge from the South African economic/business class underscore two issues. First, they ensure that any attempt to introduce media bills does not see the light of the day. This is by virtue of the facts history reminds us. That freedom in South Africa was won through the consensus that property rights will be respected and existing businesses interests will not be interfered with. This is also out of the symbiotic relationship between the media and business in a largely capitalistic democracy like South Africa.

Second,  politicians will find it difficult to push ideas that are conflicting with the interests of those who bankroll their campaigns – the business class. Political parties in South Africa, the African National Congress (ANC) included, have been increasingly relying on private donations and public funds for their election campaigns even though their sources of funding have been shrouded by mystery. It is only through scandals like the ‘Oilgate,’ where state funds were allegedly channelled to ANC, that we really begin to get into the depth of such mystery.

Nevertheless, the media will remain a site for struggle due to the fact that it forms part of a powerful public sphere acting as a platform for deliberating important issues of public concern for common good. However, it should guard (self regulation) itself against the excesses of commercialization where professionalism is sacrificed at the altar of commercial interests – Perhaps this should be addressed but not in terms of draconian laws and subjective media tribunals.