Here we are again.
The long-running crisis at the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) is back on the agenda after the communications minister, Solly Malatsi, withdrew the SABC bill from parliament in mid-November, to first develop a funding model for inclusion.
The broadcaster, founded in the 1930s, served as propaganda organ for the apartheid government before being transformed to serve the new democracy after 1994. Its charter grants it freedom of expression, while requiring it to reflect a full range of views, and encourage South African cultural expression.
In late 2023, the SABC bill was introduced to modernise and restructure the broadcaster, but was sharply criticised for undermining its independence.
Responses to the bill’s withdrawal were quick and divergent. The politically dominant African National Congress (ANC) reacted angrily. Khusela Diko, an ANC national executive committee member, and chair of parliament’s communications committee, said the move was ill-advised and would sound the corporation’s death knell by delaying important reforms. Civil society groups like the SOS Support Public Broadcasting Coalition, meanwhile, welcomed the withdrawal of a bill they have called fatally flawed.
Malatsi has now committed to addressing concerns and returning with a reworked bill within a year.
The wrangle comes after years of crisis: a chronic inability to stem huge financial losses and repeated attempts by government functionaries to control content.
It is small wonder that some are questioning whether the country needs a public broadcaster. The conservative lobby group AfriForum has called for the SABC to be privatised. The official policy of the Democratic Alliance (DA), the second largest party, calls for an inquiry into whether the SABC should continue.
These approaches are ill conceived.
As a former senior editor at the SABC, recent board candidate and journalism academic, I have taken a close interest in the corporation over many years.
The SABC still matters. Its difficulties have a lot to do with a long list of public obligations which are not funded. Instead, the broadcaster remains overwhelmingly dependent on advertising income. It seems reasonable to suggest that if the country wants public goals met, it should find at least some public money to make that possible.
An important institution
There is no question that the SABC continues to play an important role. For many people, particularly in poorer areas, its channels represent a lifeline of information, entertainment and connection. Radio stations in African languages, particularly, attract millions of people: Nine out of the ten largest radio stations belong to the SABC. Ukhozi FM, broadcasting in isiZulu, reaches over 7.6m listeners a week, around ten times the audience of, for instance, the influential Gauteng-based station 702.
Despite editorial controversies over the years, trust levels are high. The Reuters Institute’s Digital News report gives SABC News a trust score of almost 80%, though it notes methodological limitations. And monitoring of election coverage has found the SABC generally to be fair and balanced.
With its national footprint, its reach beyond the urban elite and its use of all languages, the SABC provides an important space for conversations between groups in an increasingly polarised society. It is also an important player in the cultural economy, supporting local music and other productions.
Chronic crisis
Nevertheless, the reality has not always lived up to the ideal. The ongoing financial crisis has absorbed too much energy and generated too much uncertainty to allow real creativity to develop.
Earlier this year, the SABC announced it had achieved its first unqualified audit in many years and cut the deficit by around 80% to R200 million (about US$11 million). Though justifiably proud of the achievement, the corporation pointed out the implications: there is hardly any money to invest in content, infrastructure or innovation.
Dependent on repeated government bailouts, the corporation has been left unable to respond to a rapidly changing environment. Without investment, audience numbers and revenue will continue to decline.
At the heart of the problem is the unfunded public mandate – the costs of fulfilling public obligations without being given money to do so. That includes, for instance, ensuring minority audiences that are not attractive to advertisers are properly served. The SABC estimates the cost of its public mandate at some R800 million (about US$44 million) a year.
There is very little government money flowing into the SABC, leaving it overwhelmingly dependent on commercial income. Official grants amount to just 3.2% of revenue, with 54% from advertising and 15% from sponsorship.
There is a need to find additional public money to execute a public mandate. But the difficult question is how, in the light of the extensive demands on government budgets. At the same time, there are justifiable fears that more direct government funding would undermine independence. Already, civil society critics have suggested that the row over the withdrawn bill has a lot to do with the ANC wanting closer control over the SABC. The party ran the country from 1994 until the elections in May.
Direct public support
The best mechanism to ensure an independent and reliable revenue stream would be direct payment from audiences. Licence fees exist in countries like Britain and other European countries. But, the system is widely regarded as having failed in South Africa. Though it does contribute around 16% of the SABC’s income, it is deeply unpopular and widely evaded.
Instead of the licence, the SABC has now proposed a household levy to be collected by the tax authorities and by MultiChoice, the owner of the dominant pay television service DSTV. The argument is that owners of any relevant device should be obliged to pay as SABC channels are now available far beyond the traditional TV set.
Read more: Journalism has changed. Education must reflect the reality
However, the measure is likely to face significant resistance, not just from MultiChoice. After years of problems at the SABC, it will take a lot to persuade the cash-strapped public to accept that the SABC is valuable enough to justify an additional levy.
Technical change is complicating matters. Audiences increasingly meet their information and entertainment needs through new online channels, placing great pressure on all legacy media.
Possible solutions
A range of suggestions have been made to address the financial problem. The SABC has complained that signal distributor Sentech is exploting its monopoly position to charge unreasonable tariffs.
In 2022, the communications sector regulator Icasa acceded to the SABC’s request that Multichoice and other carriers should pay for access to the SABC channels they are obliged to carry. Negotiations about amounts began, but soon deadlocked. Recently, the high cost of broadcasting sports of national interest was again on the agenda.
The Competition Commission is preparing a report into anti-competitive behaviour by technical platforms such as Google and Facebook, which have disrupted media markets worldwide. Hopefully, the commission’s proposed solutions will also benefit public broadcasting.
Missing in all of this is the political will to find a solution. There are ideas and possibilities for a funding model that would add new revenue streams to support the SABC’s public mandate. But the issue has been neglected over many years, leading to a series of policy bungles and reversals. Without urgent intervention an important national institution will continue on a path of steady decline.
Franz Krüger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
