Media Censorship: The SABC
On 11 May 2016, The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) committed itself to playing 90% local music across its 18 radio stations, starting from 12 May 2016. The SABC’s Chief Operations Officer (COO), Hlaudi Motsoeneng stated: “The SABC has taken a radical decision about its local content offering across all its radio, television and digital platforms. It is in this context that the decision on local music will ensure that the SABC fully reflects the various styles of local music on offer.” This decision was met with negativity from listeners on various social platforms. Various people complained and the general sentiment was that South Africans do not listen to SABC radio solely for local music and that the SABC should not decide what we as South Africans listen to and what not. The reason for this decision (according to the SABC) is to promote local artists and to showcase everything South Africa has to offer. Two weeks after the decision was made, MetroFM backtracked on the decision, playing 50% local and 50% international music instead. This came after Kaizer Kganyago, spokesperson for the SABC, and Hlaudi Motsoeneng repeatedly announced that there would be no exceptions and that the change to a 90% local quota was permanent. More recently, the SABC announced that they would no longer be showing footage of protesters destroying public property during protests. The reason given was that broadcasting the footage encourages such behaviour. This is very similar to the decision made during Apartheid not to broadcast footage of township uprisings – the reason given then was that broadcasting the footage would encourage the violence to spread. Communications Minister Faith Muthambi (for clarity, an ANC member) supported this recent decision by the SABC – as did the ANC as a whole. Muthambi states that this decision will “go a long way to discourage attention-seeking anarchists”. My question here is this: Whose attention are these “anarchists” seeking? The government’s. Why are they seeking this attention? Because the government is failing them. Now, instead of addressing these people’s problems, the governing party is ignoring them, enjoying the “mute button” that the SABC has provided for them. Muthambi added that the ANC believes that this decision would help ensure “nation building and the promotion of social cohesion”... no explanation was forthcoming as to how the decision would do so. Busi Mtabane, spokesperson for the Right to Know campaign, told Al Jazeera that the decision by the SABC signalled a return the Apartheid times, when media was censored and “the national broadcaster was a mouthpiece for the ruling party”. Mtabane stated that “[f]iltering the news will leave people on the ground less informed and oblivious to the failures of the state”. “They are saying it's for the good of the society, just like the apartheid government said it was at the time,” former general-secretary of the Congress for South African Trade Unions (COSATU), Zwelinzima Vavi, said. Phumzile van Damme, spokesperson for the Democratic Alliance (DA), said that “Motseoeng’s decision(s) has the hallmarks of authoritarianism, and seriously undermines the intelligence of the South African public”. The Economic Freedom Fighters [EFF] also criticised the decision, stating that the decision was “about protecting of the image of the [African National Congress (ANC)], saving it from the whole country seeing that it has caused so much suffering in our country”. I admit, it is not often that I find myself agreeing with the EFF – this is certainly an exception to that. “We are saying that we will still cover the protests and their dissatisfaction. We will just not show scenes of violence,” Kganyago stated. My question is: How informed will the public be, if this is the case? Will the public know the scale of the protest? Will the public know that it would be dangerous to be in the areas affected by these protests? This is why we, as people, distinguish between protests and violent protests. Associate editor of the Daily Maverick, Ranjeni Munusamy, tweeted: “So SABC is censoring itself and asking everyone else to follow suit. And why is Hlaudi making editorial decisions?” Kganyago clarified on the poorly received last statement of the SABC’s announcement, which asks other South African broadcasters to follow their example, saying it was not to call on media houses not to cover protests at all, but rather to not show images and video of the violence. The ANC claims that the SABC’s decision is not censorship. “What the SABC has done with its decision not to show footage or visuals of people destroying property has opened up a debate… [and] media houses must welcome that debate of what is the role of media in the context of nation building,” national spokesperson, Zizi Kodwa, said. “I don’t think we must look at it as censorship… we must not look at it negatively.” Another interesting debate seems to open from Kodwa's statement – why is the ANC the only party supporting the decision, and why would it be wrong to be negative about limiting media freedom? It certainly is not a pro-public move in any way to deny the public information. It seems odd that the governing party should be happy about something that has left most of the South African media outraged and worried. I encourage my readers to read the following article, that speculates that media censorship in South Africa goes back further than we realise. I also encourage my readers to read this piece, an opinion on the SABC as a “propaganda machine” for the ANC. And I have not yet even started to discuss the SABC’s decision not to air the DA’s election advertisement (which can be viewed here). The SABC claim that they have no available slots for political advertisements due to delays in the Independent Electoral Commission’s (IEC’s) work with respect to the August 3 local government elections. But the DA insists that all parties have the right to broadcast political advertisements by now, especially since the election date has already been announced. This is not the first time the public broadcaster has been accused of refusing to air DA commercials. Two years ago, it banned the party's “Ayisafani” election campaign ads (one of which can be viewed here). Ayisafani means “it is not the same” and it refers specifically to the ANC, which no longer stands for what is used to. This is a slogan of the DA’s that, very recently, our minister of foreign affairs, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, mocked on Al Jazeera, after watching a video of a South African youth criticise the ANC, saying it no longer stands for what it used to. Our minister patronised the youth, dismissing his statement because he was “very young” (implying that he did not know what he was talking about) and continued to boast about how she used the DA slogan “Ayisafani” to test her children’s loyalty to the ANC. This (painfully tragic) interview can be seen here. It is well known that the ANC is not fond of criticism, and very unlikely to act on any sort of criticism or suggestion, irrespective of how constructively it is intended or urgent the matter at hand is. We have seen it often over the years, and Zuma's innumerable bungling indiscretions and corrupt dealings have thrust the ANC's intolerance of criticism into the public eye. I only hope that we, the voters of South Africa, do not let them get away with these attempts to blind the public eye so that they can loot, steal and party in peace. Make your vote heard where you think it will help you. Remember what you have seen and heard, and judge for yourself. As a voter, it is ultimately your power that redeems us or damns us. If you enjoyed this article, or found it useful, please subscribe and share, because that is literally the only way my voice gets heard. Sources and other links: • SABC commits to play 90% local music across all platforms • New quota for SABC radio aims to preserve local heritage • MetroFM backtracks on Hlaudi’s 90% local music order • More artists voice full support for SABC’s 90% local music quota • Minister backs SABC protest censorship • More criticism for SABC's 'apartheid-like censorship' • COSATU rejects SABC “censorship” • Political parties condemn SABC 'censorship' • Is the #SABC ban on protests censorship? • SABC: Decision on protest broadcasts is not self-censorship • SABC decision is not censorship – ANC • Ed Herbst – Censorship roots. SABC’s ‘Eureka Moment’ – the Arms Deal • Minister welcomes SABC's broadcast ban on violent protests • SABC will no longer broadcast footage of violent protests • #SABC bans broadcast of violent protests • SABC confirms status as Govt’s propaganda machine, not public broadcaster • SABC refuses to air DA election ads • SABC waiting for final lists before airing DA ads • Ayisafani – The full story • Maite Nkoana-Mashabane – ANC at a crossroads