Leapfrogging into the market approach: the loss of public service broadcasting for development and nation building

Pieter J FourieDepartment of Communication ScienceUniversity of South Africa

Abstract

Can public service broadcasting under the pressure of the market approach be saved for development and nation building purposes in developing countries? Within the context of the ongoing debate about the future of public service broadcasting and how to justify it, this paper seeks answers to the above question by first of all describing what the market paradigm or approach to the regulation and management of broadcasting entails. Thereafter the approach’s impact on public service broadcasting (PSB) is briefly discussed, followed by an analysis of the impact thereof on broadcasting in developing countries. South African broadcasting is the case study. In the following part, public service broadcasting policy is problematised by focussing on the paradoxes that faces policy-makers and researchers, leading them to consider whether the time has not arrived to seek a new model for public service broadcasting. In the concluding part an alternative is suggested, namely to focus on public service broadcasting as a genre offered by all role players in the broadcasting sector, instead of focussing on public service broadcasting as an institution. It is argued that such an approach could eliminate many of the present problems associated with PSB in a changed and converged media environment and simultaneously ensure social responsibility in broadcasting in developing countries.

1 INTRODUCTION

In adopting the market approach to broadcasting, developing countries are losing public service broadcasting (PSB) for development and nation building purposes. Public broadcasting institutions are becoming less capable of fulfilling their social responsibility mandates. The questions is: Can PSB still be saved for development and nation building, and if so, how? The case study is South African public service broadcasting.

Before continuing with this argument, it needs to be emphasised that the paper is not about development communication or set in the context of development communication theory with the purpose of trying to establish or proof broadcasting’s role in development and nation building. For the purpose of this paper “development” means changes in patterns of society that allow greater sustainable realisation of human values, allow a society greater control over the environment and over its own destiny and, ultimately, enable its individuals to gain greater control over their own lives. Suffice it to say that there is sound empirical proof that broadcasting (in Africa, especially radio) can contribute significantly to sensitising the public’s awareness of development needs and projects, to mobilise participation, and to play a significant role in nation building, especially in times of political and social transformation when feelings of insecurity and discontinuity exist.

With “developing countries” is meant the countries of the southern African region, or the so-called Southern African Development Community (SADC). In their Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport (cf. Southern African Development Community, 2004) as well as in the Windhoek Declaration (cf. Declaration of Windhoek, 2004), these countries have committed them, amongst others, to the creation of a political and economic environment conducive to the growth of pluralistic media, and the promotion, establishment and growth of independent media. By so-doing they have adopted (in varying degrees) the market approach. Although the different countries are in different stages of development towards this goal, in some there may even be a slowdown or, as in the case of Zimbabwe, a return to totalitarianism (cf. Media Institute of Southern Africa, 2004(a)), the ideal towards achieving this goal remains. In this, South Africa is taking the lead. From the outset it must also be made clear that despite the negative impact of the market paradigm on the role of PSB in development and nation building, it can also be seen as a buffer against political totalitarianism and its misuse of the media, as is happening in Zimbabwe.

Although social responsibility theory underlies the thinking in this paper, normative theories

about the role of the media in society and the theoretical debates about this, is not the topic of discussion. The author is aware of the complexities related to the concepts of “nation”, “nationhood”, “nation building”, “nation state”, etcetera. Again, the purpose is not to discuss the the variety of political, cultural, sociological and even economic interpretations of these concepts. Suffice it to say that after apartheid, South Africa is in the process of shifting from a racially constituted system of inequality and cultural identity to a new national identity constituted as culturally diverse, but with equality based on a citizenship that acknowledges and respects multiculturalism and individual human rights. (Cf. Simpson (1994), To this the popular name of “the Rainbow Nation” was given by Bishop Desmond Tutu.

In the process of adopting some form of multiculturalism, Baines (1998:4) distinguishes two imperatives: The first strives to construct a new national identity by trying to create a sense of belonging amongst the different race, linguistic, and ethnic groups to the broader South African community and a pride in its achievements, in other words, a new patriotism. The second concerns the need to acknowledge cultural diversity and accommodate group identities. It challenges any conception of the nation as a cultural whole and fosters the recognition of sub-national identities. In this the media and its variety of discourses play a role.

In terms of methodology the arguments to be presented are mainly based on a literature study and on a close observation of developments in the South African broadcasting sector. As with all arguments there may be counter arguments. Obviously, observations, criticism, assumptions and judgments are open for empirical investigation. As is the case with all factor analyses, in this case the (broad) impact of the market approach on PSB, other crucial factors which may evenly impact of the functioning of a broadcasting system, may be neglected and overlooked. The study should, however, be read within the context of the ongoing academic discourse about the almost world-wide decline of PSB. Finally, unless indicated, the arguments mainly concern public service television.

In the following sections the nature of the market approach, its impact on PSB, its impact on South African PSB, the paradoxes it creates for PSB policy and an alternative or a way out of the dilemma are discussed.

2 THE MARKET APPROACH

As stated in the introduction, the central argument is that developing countries, such as South Africa, should take care not to leapfrog into the deregulation and privatisation of their

broadcasting industries without calculating the cost this may have for development and nation building.

For decades South Africa had a system of mixed state-public-private-broadcasting. During this time the public broadcaster was misused for disseminating first the ideology of British colonialism followed by the ideology of apartheid and thus separate development based on racism and a disregard for human rights. South Africa began to adopt the market approach to broadcasting since the beginning of the 1990s. The effects thereof are now being felt. Before this is dealt with in more detail, the nature of the market approach and how various role players are dealing with the impact thereof in order to find a way to safeguard the future of public service broadcasting (PSB), are briefly reviewed.

Public service broadcasting in its ideal form started to decline under the pressure of globalisation and its associated neo-liberalism and new economics, which transformed the cultural, political and economic culture almost worldwide. In broadcasting this led the UK and major European countries to adopt the USA’s commercial broadcasting system or variations thereof. The previous clear distinction between three main types of national broadcasting systems, namely a core public service system, or a private enterprise core system, or a state core system (Raboy, 2003:45) started to merge into a single system made up of a mix of public, private and other types of broadcasters in which public service broadcasting may still play a significant, but no longer dominant role.

Apart from globalisation, its politics, ideology and economics, the change in broadcasting philosophy was instigated and accelerated by technological developments that brought about digitisation, convergence of media technologies, and the provision of new delivery platforms (Cf. e.g. Chalaby & Segell, 1999). This led, amongst others, to deregulation with, as a result, increased consumer choice, increased competition in local and global markets, the rise of niche markets, an increased battle for advertising revenue, and an increased battle to find new ways of funding.

The market-oriented approach is based on the belief that the market is the only “democratic” regulatory mechanism. (Cf. e.g. McChesney, 1997:3.) The main argument in the new paradigm is that regulation should favour the contributions of technology to the creation of a vibrant economy and to the convenience of consumers. Freedom of expression is interpreted to mean, first of all, diversity. Governments are increasingly seen not to intervene, but to rely on the industry’s selfimposed controls and perceptions of social responsibility. Stein & Sinha (2002: 419), for example, argue that in market-based regulation the role of the government is limited to establishing a legal framework that facilitates commerce, provides

industries with incentives to regulate themselves, and maintains marketplace competition and consumer choice. The primary goal is economic efficiency. The ability of economic efficiency to maximise wealth is equated with the overall public interest and beneficial social outcomes. The legitimacy of this model rests on the assumption that consumers can choose at any time to exit a relationship.

Critics of marketplace regulation argue that allowing business to determine social purposes results in the erosion of public service values traditionally maintained by governments. By defining economic efficiency as the end goal of a communication system, market regimes reduce information and communication to mere commodities, and fail to recognise the social and cultural roles of communication and information in political, social and cultural life. It takes the right to be informed, the right to quality and freedom of expression out of the domain of public political and social processes and into that of private organizations where these rights will not necessarily find protection and valuation.

As far as content is concerned, traditional PSB was seen to provide citizens, compared to consumers in the market approach, with quality programming that would

• provide them with information that will allow them to participate fully in their societies • foster their development, curiosity and education • tap the best of a nation's cultural resources in literature, art, drama, science, history, etcetera • express national and regional cultural identity (Cf. Blumler 1993)

In the market approach the emphasis, as far as content is concerned, has moved to the satisfaction of commercial interests and thus to the maximisation of audience figures. This has led to increased commercialisation, popularisation, repetition, less depth and less diversity in programming despite the rise of so-called niche channels.

In short, as Tracey (1998) argues, the market approach and the resultant new media environment it has created, has brought with it a new ideology characterised by an ethos in which managerial values, financial gain, process, efficiency and recipes, instead of creativity, public service and social good, rules. The idea of public broadcasting to sustain the general good and well-being of society has become secondary. The body politic is no longer seen (also by itself) as necessary to make strategic interventions and decisions to safeguard an institution that can provide a range of depth and quality as a bulwark against the immanent inadequacies of finances and capital. Most of all, and despite the diversity and pluralism the market approach may have created, it has and is undermining the very idea of broadcasting as a democratic public sphere (see point 3). As Van Cuilenburg & McQuail (2003:13) argue, the market approach (paradigm) is not just about money. It is about a

system of beliefs and values that continually activate a media culture in which mass communication is primarily a business.

However, despite the rise and dominance of the market approach, the ideal of PSB free from political and market pressures is not yet dead. It continues to designate a strong value of social worth - “the last best hope for socially purposeful media acting in the public interest” (Raboy 2003: 46). Despite globalisation and the so-called decline of the nation state, individual countries and regions still see the need to defend PSB and to find ways in which to revive it. In the Europe Union, for example, the continued believe in the value of PSB is underscored by the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty (cf. Council of the European Union, 1997.) Although far from solving the dilemma of PSB, this declaration can be seen as a step towards the need to safeguard public broadcasting institutions as essential to the health of the media in a democratic society, and it demonstrated the power of politicians to resist commercial pressures. Another example in this direction, especially to the benefit of developing countries and the role of PSB in development, was Unesco’s World Commission on Culture and Development (1991/95/98) and its Action Plan for Cultural Policies for Development (cf. Unesco, 1998).

The question now is: How do you secure PSB as an important democratic force, free of market and political pressure? Finding answers seems not to be easy.

3 PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING, THE MARKET APPROACH AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE

In dealing with and analysing the impact of the market approach on PSB a number of topics are central. In academic research and discourse the point of departure is usually the relationship between the media and democracy and the social responsibility of the media - in short, the media as/in the public sphere. This is an old issue, but reinterpreted in the contemporary debate against the background of, amongst others, globalisation, information society, development, information flow, electronic colonialism, systems, and postmodern theory, all within the context of a critical scrutiny of the political economy of the media.

Deductively, there seems to be consensus in the literature that finding solutions should start with a re-interpretation and re-appreciation of the principles (values) of PSB, which were defined in an era of generalinterest media, long before the present era of convergence and deregulation. These principles remain essential for the future of PSB, but they need to be given new meaning and reinterpreted in a new media world characterized by, amongst others, media and audience fragmentation. (Cf. Price & Raboy, 2001.)

The original principles sought to ensure and guide a public broadcaster that would be (i) free from political and commercial pressure and interest (principles related to independence and autonomy), (ii) representative of and accessible to all citizens of a country, and that would (iii) provide quality programming that would reflect national culture, identity, free debate and creativity.

To re-interpret and adapt these principles to a new media environment presuppose a new understanding of the role of a highly commercialised media in a changed public sphere.

Two main models prevail as to what the concept of the “public sphere” in a democracy entails: the liberal-representative model (with its origin in the work of authors such as John Locke [1695] and John Stuart Mill [1861]), and the deliberative model (as elaborated on by authors such as Habermas [1962] and JB Thompson [1995]). (Cf. Thomass, 2003:29-41.) Insofar as the role of the media in a democracy is concerned, the main focus in the first model is on the independence of the media ( and thus of PSB), representativeness, access, and regulation towards the securement of aforementioned. The function of (media) content is primarily seen to deliver information (programming) that would contribute to the formation of an informed public opinion. Within the public sphere the media constitutes a system of observation and exposure of anything that poses a danger to the existence of democracy.

Apart from addressing independence, representativeness and access, the deliberative model emphasises the quality of the public sphere, as well as consensus and transparency. More attention is given to content by posing questions such as `What is the nature of communication in today’s public sphere?’, and, ` What is the character of the debate in today’s public sphere?’. (Cf. Thomass, 2003.) Taking into account the nature of today’s knowledge society, the media is seen not just to provide information but also knowledge, which is information connected with experience and the capacity for social action. The quality of information and its potential and ability to empower citizens towards meaningful and concrete social, cultural and economic involvement is thus at stake. As far as the present state of market-dominated PSB is concerned, the question should be: What is the quality of the information and knowledge carried by PSB that would distinguish it from other media in its tasks to mediate, provide orientation, and to structure and contextualise information, entertainment and education towards social action?

In answering this question (or variations thereof), a rather gloomy picture unfolds as author after author tends to question the value of PSB under the pressure of marketization. Despite technological advances (amongst others to increase access), the question remains whether

PSB as a political force is independent enough of not only political but also commercial pressure to achieve the journalistic ideals of political debate, namely representation, exposure, and the mobilisation of citizens to participate in politics (cf. McNair & Hibberd, 2003: 272-283).

As far as culture, entertainment and education are concerned, it is acknowledged that the supply of popular and popularised knowledge via a variety of popular programmes is an important constituting and formative element of the public sphere (cf. Fourie, 2001(a): 277-288; Thomass, 2003:33; ) However, it is questioned whether PSB can achieve this when it has to sacrifice its distinctiveness under the pressure of competition with its resultant formatted recipes, prime-time dictates, structured program formats and genres, little room for documentaries, and little room for creativity and originality.

To summarise: Whereas the liberal-representative public sphere model mainly warns against totalitarianism and the political misuse of the media, the deliberative model warns that despite its potential and claims towards pluralism and diversity, market pressure poses a similar threat to the independence of the media (and PSB) and its role in a democracy. (Cf. e.g. Fourie, 1992: 19-29 for further exposition of this argument.)

The outcome of the debates conducted within the framework of public sphere theory is usually that if PSB is to continue to play a role in democracy, it should provide a space where the public can express ideas freely and in which information, opinions, criticisms, entertainment and education can be circulated independent of commercial pressures or political influence. To achieve this, the guiding principle towards establishing an independent and democratic public service broadcaster should be the establishment of “pluralism” - but then, pluralism that is neither part of the state nor wholly dependent on the processes of the market. This can only be established through the principle of regulated pluralism (cf. Thompson, 2002) in which editorial and programme independence, institutional autonomy and accountability is entrenched. The goal should be to make the relationship between public broadcasting, government, the market and civil society as transparent as possible and to discourage any attempt at interference.

Only if PSB is able to do this, can it reclaim its justification as an important instrument for social cohesion and integration and justify its role in democracy and within the broader media framework. Again, the question is how? Finding solutions, and thus a new policy model for PSB is the objective. In doing this, the emphasis is mainly on the independence, accountability, funding, regulation, access and distinctiveness of PSB. Before addressing this in point 5, the following section seeks to investigate the impact of the market approach

on PSB in South Africa and its role in development and nation building.

4 THE STATE OF PSB IN SOUTH AFRICA

After inheriting apartheid’s legacy of inequality and poverty, the South African government implemented various development policies and programmes to improve the lives of its citizens spread over a geographic region of 1 219 090 square km, divided into nine provinces. Despite progress with these programmes in, amongst others, the provision of telecommunications, housing, education, basic health services, and so on, 20 to 28 million out of the 44 million South Africans still live in poverty. 39% do not have a stable source of food and 25% earn less than R100 ($14/ 12 E) a month. Although the latest reports predict a slowdown, one in nine South Africans is HIV infected.(Cf. South Africa 2002 (c), Department of Social Development.) In April 2004 the unemployment figure was between 35 and 40 percent . (Cf. Bonthuys, 2004:17.) Crime is rife. According to the political opposition, South Africa has 60 murders a day compared to, for example, Finland’s 60 a year. The main reason given for the high crime rate is unemployment.

4.1 Increased competition, development and nation buildingAgainst the background of statistics like these and a history of racial and cultural division, the main goals with new broadcasting legislation was/is twofold:

First of all, broadcasting is seen to empower the public broadcaster to play a role in development and nation building. This is outlined in various mission and vision statements and supported, amongst others, by a local content policy, which is based on the premise that the more South African broadcasting is defined by programmes about other cultures and from the creative output of others, the less the “South African way of life”, values and contexts are reflected.

Secondly, a main goal is to liberalise the broadcasting sector in line with international trends and convergence technology, and by so-doing, allow broadcasting to contribute significantly to the national economy.

The problem is that these two policy goals inherently contradict each other (cf. the discussion of paradoxes in point 5). The effect of new policy is now becoming more apparent: Liberalisation and deregulation, which started with the selling of six of the SABC’s radio stations and the adoption of more liberalised ownership regulations, set the SABC on the road of competition with the private sector to the detriment of fulfilling its public service mandate. To this must be added that the SABC’s state funding decreased and it had to become more

self-funded and self-reliant.

Although still dominating the broadcasting sector with its

• fourteen public and four “public commercial” radio stations (PCS) reaching an average audience of 20, 8 million people, and • three national full-spectrum free-to-air television channels, reaching an estimated daily audience of 17 million people (cf. South African Broadcasting Corporation, 2003)

the SABC has lost its absolute monopoly of more than four decades.

It now has to compete with fourteen private radio stations, fifty community radio stations, one free-to-air private national terrestrial television channel, e-tv, and the subsctription satllite service MultiChoice. MultiChoice offers more than fifty television and forty-eight music channels (cf. South Africa 2002(d):136), including the SABC channels, 13 M-Net entertainment and sports channels, a parliamentary channel, e.tv, BBC World, Sky News, CNN, BVN, BBC Prime, the highly successful Afrikaans channel kykNET, niche channels such, BBC Food, Discovery, the History Channel, the French TV5, additional pay packages to cater for the German, Portuguese and Indian communities, and interactive data channels, including the 24 hour South African news channel, news.24.com.

In typical competitive style, the SABC adopted market strategies such as

• to divide into two divisions - public and commercial (organisational restructuring)• new market-oriented programming strategies, in which the focus is on prime-time programming and new and popular programme formats, such as game and talk shows of which the quality is more than often dubious • extension of popular programme formats• day-time repetitions • the exploration of supplementary sources of revenue such as sponsorships • the provision of services that go beyond traditional broadcasting such as on-line activities, and • branding campaigns to position itself in an increasing competitive market

As for organisational restructuring the SABC relaunched its channels with new logos, new slogans, new presenters, new sets, etcetera. As far as staff is concerned, the Corporation embarked on the road of affirmative action and black empowerment, affecting all levels of governance, management and employment. In terms of the Broadcasting Amendment Act (cf. South Africa 2002(a)). the SABC divided into two sections: a public service section and a public commercial section, with the latter expected to fund the former. It is thus in the process of being converted from a statutory corporation to a public company (SABC Ltd), with the Minister of Communications as shareholder. As soon as the process is completed the SABC will apply to the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) for

amendment of its existing licences to reflect the SABC’s public and commercial services. Whether this strategy will allow the SABC to fulfill its public mandate more successfully, remains to be seen.

Media analysts and critics (cf. e.g. Duncan, [Sa]; Matlou, 2004) argue that the splitting of the SABC into two divisions runs the risk of creating, amongst others

• an “unworkable” and more costly organisational structure as SABC departments cannot neatly be separated into two distinctive divisions each with its own managment team and financial reporting system• compromises the institutional and editorial independence of the SABC and as such contradicts the spirit of the Broadcasting Act (see 4.3)• undermines the jurisdiction of ICASA by creating confusion and uncertainty in the licensing and regulation of the broadcasting industry. For example, it is not clear which regulatory agency will regulate the SABC’s commercial services and whether ICASA’s jurisdiction in terms of developing policy and monitoring the industry will exclude the SABC’s commercial services.

Apart from the SABC’s “social responsibility announcements” and its broadcasting of national events such as the inauguration of the state president and the celebration of ten years of democracy concerts and festivals, little has materialised of programming contributing to the ideal of nation building and development. Documentaries, and in depth discussion, current affairs and educational programmes that could contribute to an acute awareness of the problems and measures (or lack thereof) to overcome the country’s development problems, needs and challenges, to contextualise and debate them, and to sensitise the public towards finding and contributing towards solutions, are far and in-between.

Since 1990 South Africa is going through a rigorous process of political and social transformation that affects the life of each citizen and the organisation and culture of each South African institution. There are many uncertainties and anxieties among those who have lost their power and positions as white citizens. At the same time, discontent amongst the black population is growing as their expectations are not met and the gap between rich and poor and between a new black elite and those who have not gained much since South Africa became a democracy, grows. To tell these people’s stories, to bring them together through programming that has as its objective to create an understanding of each other’s cultures, histories and ideals, and to contextualise the country’s problems, achievements and possibilities, is of great importance. Public service broadcasting, in what used to be its true spirit, is ideally situated to achieve this.

Claims that locally produced soap-operas and dramatic series (with their mixed-race casts, plots, intrigues, settings and mise-en-scene) contribute to such story-telling and thus to a better understanding (nation building) amongst South-Africa’s of different races, ethnic

groups and cultures, may be true, but are open for empirical investigation. There are also counter-arguments that they may also contribute to a further alienation between people and that they portray images that are far removed from the reality as experienced by the majority of South Africans. (Cf. Pitout, 1996.)

Most of all, in the new South African media environment, audiences are more fragmented. Two of the three SABC television channels cater for the language needs and preferences of ten of the countries official language groups (English aside), leaving each with a minimum number of 90 minutes per day, including a 30-minute news bulletin. In the case of, for example, Afrikaans speaking audiences, those who can afford private subscription and satellite television, can switch to a channel such as kykNET on the DStv platform to continue viewing Afrikaans programmes after they have watched 90 minutes of daily Afrikaans programming on SABC 2. By so-doing they miss programming (the remainder of SABC2 and SABC1's programming) in African languages, even thought they may have English subtitles. The opportunity of addressing a national audience with programming of national interest is thus lost. The same applies to African and English language audiences. SABC3 (the public commercial channel) focusses mainly on series, situation comedies and films, most of them imported or based on imported recipes and is in direct competition with the private e.tv channel.

To address the language issues, the Broadcasting Amendment Act provides for the creation of two regional television services. However, although these services was supposed to be up and running by March 2004, the process of investigating their feasibility, financial viability (which is increasingly questioned), and whether they would at all be able address the language issue, is far from being resolved.

In short, in terms of content, new policy and competitive strategies caused the SABC to lose its distinctiveness as a public broadcaster. The SABC offers little, if anything, that could not be offered by the private sector.

This argument was reaffirmed in 2002/2003 when ICASA conducted public hearings about a further relaxation of ownership regulation. The private sector was almost unanimous in its view that (i) the SABC should be empowered (through funding other than advertising) to become a pure public service broadcaster, (ii) that the ownership regulations at the time of the hearings were out of step with the demands of sustainable economic transformation, (iii) that the regulations inhibit the economic stability and growth of present and future private media owners, and (iv) that the SABC’s commercial broadcasting services should be privatised. (Cf.Mabuza, 2003(a).) Worded by Stan Katz, head of African Media

Entertainment’s broadcasting division: ”If [South Africa] wants a thriving, globally competitive broadcasting industry, we cannot have the SABC raking in 62% of the total advertising revenue in radio and TV.” (Cf. Classen 2003.)

To defend itself, the SABC argued that it receives limited public funding to fulfil its public service mandate; that it is therefore largely reliant on advertising and sponsorships; that the Broadcasting Act and Amendment Act allows it to run public commercial services in order to subsidise its public services, and, that many public broadcasters around the world are now reliant on multiple sources of funding. (Cf. Mabuza 2003(b).) Most of all, it uses the market failure argument to justify its existence and privileges.

Although the new ownership regulations announced early in 2004 focusses mainly on the increase of private radio and foreign investment (raised from 20 to 35%), the table is set for further competition.

4.2 Public discontent

Despite its strategies, the SABC’s audience figures declined in the 2002/2003 financial year. As far as the public is concerned, the changes and strategies adopted by the SABC gave rise to severe criticism from NGOs, the political opposition, the private industry, and academics. The SABC is frequently criticised for mismanagement, nepotism, incompetence, and a drop in quality. In short, there is rising discontent that very little has materialised of the vision for public service broadcasting as formulated during the years of the struggle against apartheid by the Jabulani Group, the Campaign for Open Media, the Campaign for Independent Broadcasting and as worded in numerous policy documents adopted by the government. African and Afrikaans language groups and their representatives frequently gather to accuse the SABC that it has and is doing too little to promote their languages and cultures.

As has happened elsewhere under the market approach, “public service broadcasting” and policy related to it is increasingly seen to be nothing more than political rhetoric. Despite the fact that South African broadcasting policy is often seen by its neighbouring developing countries as “state of the art” policy (cf. Banda, 2003), it can be argued, as was the case in Canada, that ”the gap between policy and practice is such that the promise of public broadcasting has more often than not been a pious wish” (cf. Canada 2001). At a conference in late 2000, organised by the South African Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI), and entitled “Taking Stock of the SABC”, a wide spectrum of civic organisations and trade unions were unanimous in their condemnation of the SABC as public broadcaster for its failure to

carry out its democratic mandate. On this conference the prominent media analyst and critic, John van Zyl (2002:3) commented that “The most powerful and technologically advanced public broadcaster in Africa was condemned by the very constituency that brought it into being”.

4.3 The SABC’s independence

Despite adopting the competitive market approach and the fact that the SABC is less financially dependent on the government, concern continues to exist about the political independence of the SABC. For an in depth analysis of the ideological agendas of the SABC’s boards since the early 1990's see Louw [Sa]. The following examples speak for themselves.

When the Broadcasting Amendment Act (2002) was debated in parliament in its Bill form, the Bill was seen as a deliberate act of the government to take political control of the country’s airwaves. (Cf. Ensor 2002; Smuts 2002.) Its initial objectives were to (i) require the SABC’s board to develop policies on program and editorial content that would have to be approved by the Minister of Communications, (ii) to give impetus to the setting-up of two regional television services and (iii) to provide further support for the splitting-up of the SABC’s public and commercial functions into separate operational divisions.

The first objective was a direct attempt by the government to control editorial and program content. It was criticised as being unconstitutional and that it would undermine the independence and credibility of the SABC. The second objective subverted the regulator (ICASA), which is constitutionally empowered to issue broadcasting licences. Should the regional channels materialise, it was for ICASA to decide who would be issued the licences. Further, the roll-out of the proposed regional services will be a costly exercise without any guarantees of success. The division of the SABC, as was already pointed out, does not guarantee a further improvement of fulfilling its public mandate.

In defending the Bill, the Minister of Communications, Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri, criticised the broadcasting system, including the SABC, for continuing to be dominated “by content that most of the time is about far-away countries and events that have no bearing to our existence. At times foreign rulers are given carte blanche access to our living rooms to propagate their propaganda when our own leaders cannot enjoy the privilege to air their views on important matters about our country”. She saw the Amendment Bill as the foundation for the expansion of the broadcasting system in order to provide more diversity of service to all segments of the population. (Cf. The Star, 13 December 2002: “South Africa

gears up for a more inclusive broadcasting service”.)

Although the differences were settled and the Broadcasting Amendment Act was passed in February 2003, the furore created by the Bill was seen by opposition parties to be part of the government’s tactic to erose agreed safeguards for freedom of expression and the independence of the media. In the words of opposition spokeswoman on communication, Dene Smuts, the tactic is to achieve goals by tabling, leaking or otherwise introduce shock measures that reverse the negotiated order (the Broadcasting Act), and then, having created a panic, to retreat in a show of reason, namely to compromise a position which becomes the new norm or point of departure. (Cf. Smuts, 2002.)

Further recent examples of continued concern about the broadcaster’s independence, are, amongst others the following: During the run up to the recent general election on 14 April 2004, the SABC was accused of giving preferential treatment to the ruling African National Congress’ (ANC) launch of its election manifesto and that reporting of opposition parties’ policies, meetings, etcetera, was skewed. It was also reported that a new SABC board member was guilty of conflict of interest by failing to declare interests in a public relations company that did business with the broadcaster on behalf of the ANC; that a member of the SABC’s board wanted to conduct a political “loyalty audit” amongst the SABC’s news staff; and, that a memorandum was issued to station managers ordering them that non-current affairs staff may not discuss (debate) politics outside of designated current affairs programmes, for example on talk and phone-in programmes. Prior to the election, dissatisfaction was raised by the political opposition about the appointment process of the present SABC board. It was alleged that amongst the nominations of members for the new SABC board, all the names listed on a secret ANC document was short-listed for interviews. Most recently, serious concern was raised about the controversial appointment of the SABC’s managing director of news and current affairs who is known to have close links with the ANC government. (Cf. Lawrence 2004:11; Monare 2004: 8.) What again came to issue is not which political camp the news head is from, but whether the SABC’s news and current affairs is structured in such a way that it allows public accountability to prevail over political interference.

4.4 LeapfroggingThe above brief overview of some of the main issues related to the present state of public broadcasting in South Africa, has the purpose of showing how leapfrogging into the market approach may have unforseen consequences for a public broadcaster that is supposed to primarily play a development and nation building role (how precarious such a role may also be).

Obviously there are many reasons why the governments and industries of developing countries want to adopt the market approach. In countries desperately seeking to develop their economies, the ideology and promises of new-liberal economics, globalisation and being part of the information society is attractive. It includes the potential to develop new international and national markets and in the process to expand, merge and cross old regulatory frontiers (cf. Van Cuilenburg & McQuail 2003:198). Furthermore, the freedom of the media in developing countries have often suffered under totalitarian regimes. To the media as such, the market approach is seen as a buffer against the misuse of the public broadcaster as a state broadcaster and thus as a propaganda instrument for the government of the day.

Yet, what the preceding part has shown is that adopting the market approach has left South Africa with a highly commercialised and fragmented broadcasting and a public service broadcaster struggling to reconstruct a minimal level of public service. (Cf. Horrocks, 2004:55

for an overview of a similar situation in New Zealand.) There is little if any distinction between the content of public, private and community broadcasting. Although the liberalisation of broadcasting has led to more services, the beneficiaries thereof are mainly the rich (who can afford private subscription services), with the majority becoming more information poor. As elsewhere (cf. Steemers, 2003), the market approach has increased the SABC’s susceptibility to commercial and political pressures and has tended to diminish its independence and credibility.

On a more theoretical and philosophical level, leap-frogging into the market approach without calculating the losses has left the country with a public broadcaster that, except for the broadcasting of national events (that can also be done by the private sector), can no longer claim to

• perform the function of a national point of reference and identification (cf. Rumphorst, 2001),• be one of the few links in the individualist mass society that could share something with and between citizens in a strongly hierarchical and individualist society (cf. Wolton in Van den Boogaard, 1998), and in South Africa, be a link in a highly racially, culturally, linguistically, politically and economically divided society• place social and cultural concerns before the imperatives of the marketplace (cf. Raboy, 2001)• maintain a common national culture in the postmodern era of fragmented communities and fractured identities (cf. McNair, 2002)

The SABC’s efforts to address its problems related to funding, accountability, independence,

loss of distinctiveness, commercialisation, etcetera, have limited success. Its continued justification to defend its privileges on the basis of being a so-called public broadcaster is increasingly met with scepticism. The government ‘s reluctance to listen to sections of the private industry’s call that the SABC’s commercial services should be privatised and that the private sector could provide public services, could be seen as a dangerous strategic step from the government’s side to support and sustain the SABC, so that, if needed, it could be used as a state broadcaster.

5 CONFRONTED WITH PARADOXES

Future predictions include that profitability will continue to be the main driver in broadcasting. Content push and user pull will increasingly go hand in hand. Branding will increase as content pull will change from “what do you have for me?” to “I want you to provide me with this”. Technological innovation will continue to be a driver, including the expansion of the potential of broadband and mobile technologies and with that the potential of ICTs to lower costs for content production, delivery and billing in relation to pay for specific content.(Cf. Punie et al, 2002: 12-16.)

Can PSB still be saved for development and nation building purposes in such an environment? For developing countries that have started the processes of deregulation and privatisation the contribution of broadcasting to its national economies cannot be denied as a valuable asset. What should be looked for is a way to assure the continued economic value of broadcasting as well as to safeguard the qualities of PSB. Put in another way: the policy challenge in the era of convergence, the breaking up of monopolies and in dealing with new technology, is to find a balance between economic and non-economic goals. (Cf. Van Cuilenburg & McQual, 2003.) In addressing this challenge a number of paradoxes, briefly referred to below, need to be faced.Here, the focus is on some of the paradoxes related to regulation, access, funding, and content.

5.1 Paradoxes related to regulation

As far as regulation is concerned, four main paradoxes can be identified: (i) the inherent dichotomy between culture and the market, (ii) diversity and competition leading to re-monopolisation, (iii) national regulation in a global context, and (iv) convergence policy which may threaten freedom of expression.

Policy mainly strives towards the achievement of two goals. First, it wants to secure a set of privileges for PSB, define its obligations, and formulate control structures to assure PSB’s autonomy and monitor its accountability. (Cf. Syvertsen, 2003: 156-158.) Secondly, and simultaneously, it seeks to establish open markets and more competition. It thus tries to address a set of two principles or the inherent dichotomy between culture and the market or between cultural policy and economic policy.

Within each there are a further number of paradoxes that have to be dealt with as they unfold. In the case of PSB, for example, such a paradox is the increasing trend to divide within the same organisation into a dual system (traditional public broadcasting services and public commercial services), making it difficult to sustain the argument of market-failure (the so-called inability and/or unwillingness of the private sector to cater for minorities and to invest in access (roll-out) as a justification for privileges. Adopting a dual system, places the public broadcaster on par with all other media (print, broadcasting and even the advertising industry) which have also always done “citizen-forming” (claimed to be one of the big justifications for PSB) in one or another way and even more so in the new media environment with more media available and a greater diversity of channels catering to more and more specialised tastes and needs. (Cf. Jacka, 2003:187; Hartley, 1999.)

As far as ownership is concerned, a paradox is that greater competition tends to result in fewer competitors. Put in another way: deregulation encourages consolidation and often results in an oligopoly with a handful of companies controlling the market, aiming at (re)monopolisation. (Hujanen and Lowe, 2003:21.) Despite increased diversity, South Africa is experiencing an increased re-concentration of ownership in both broadcasting and the print media (back to what it was under apartheid and even worse). Apart from the SABC, private broadcasting is in the hands of two main groups. The print media, which under apartheid was controled by four groups, is now in the hands of three. As Horwitz (1989) and Hujanen and Lowe ( 2003:21) warn: Although competition is good, it inherently aims towards (re)monopolisation; although deregulation promises greater competition, in application it usually results in fewer competitors and in oligopoly with a handful of corporations controlling the market.

In terms of globalisation, the main paradox lies in trying to mould national regulation in the context of international trends. Yet, it is clear that support for public broadcasting solutions is more easily achieved on the national level where a specific population can judge for themselves what public broadcasting should deliver in terms of their own needs. (Syvertsen 2003:168.)

Convergence policy as a way to address future regulation seems to be scattered with problems. At the time of writing (March 2004) South Africa, taking the lead in southern Africa, was in the process of debating a Convergence Bill that aims to regulate the convergence of overlapping technologies. In the media fraternity and amongst online publishers it is feared that the Bill will stifle freedom of expression and result in the regulation of content for all website owners (electronic newspapers and broadcasters publishing online news and information). An anomaly arises where identical content published both in a newspaper and online is not subjected to regulation in the print environment but is regulated in an online environment. Apart from a possible infringement of freedom of expression, the Bill (which requires anyone who publishes online to apply for a licence), will also discourage investment in online content causing publishers to rather invest outside the borders with adverse economic consequences for the sector. At the time of writing a campaign for stopping the Bill was underway. (Cf. Mawson, 2004:29.)

5.2 Paradoxes related to access

In dealing with access, there are a number of paradoxes to be found in the inherent dichotomy between the concepts of “public/public interest” and “consumer/market/audience”. Policy usually departs from the public interest perspective. The objective is to ensure a diverse high-quality range of media available to all citizens in the interest of avoiding social exclusion and to contribute to an informed public opinion. (Cf. e.g. Feintuck 1999:199.) In the case of new media, access to new communication technologies is seen as the cornerstone of social change and cultural development. Yet, in practice, access policy often turns out to be mainly in favour of service providers wanting to maximise market opportunities.

Raboy (2003:42), with reference to Thomas (1960), shows how the market is characterised by attention to things rather than people. It is identified with freedom of enterprise, profit, etcetera. The public, on the other hand, is identified with the state, public service, public interest, community, identity, freedom of expression, etcetera. Under the market approach the media today tend to address people as consumers, not as a public, and thus, in policy, market considerations have outstripped public ones. The ideal of policy should be to restore the role of the public.

The biggest paradox confronting developing countries, lies in the first world nature of their media (both broadcasting and print) having to function in third world circumstances where the majority of their populations do not have the financial means to afford media, be it money to buy a newspaper or a magazine, a radio or a TV set, and, needless to say, without the means for expensive new media and access to such media. Within the media industry itself

there is the knowledge, skills and means to develop the industry in line with international trends, yet, such development often only benefits a minority.

In South Africa, the case of MultiChoice (see 4.1) illustrates this point. Using the most advanced digital and satellite technology and offering a wide range of national and international services, this subscription service is available to a very small minority of the population that can afford it. The paradox is that while MultiChoice shows that South Africa as a developing country is capable of competing with the best in the world, it, at the same time, increases the divide between rich and poor, and as such contributes to rising conflict and tension.

In terms of access, the SABC can almost claim universal reach. However, some sections of the population have no choice of services and they often have to rely on a single service, usually one of the SABC’s public service radio stations. To further increase access, the SABC has embarked on a (planning) process to migrate from an analogue to a digital-broadcasting environment (with international partners such as BBC Technology). Within the context of a developing country, the main questions remain: (i) Who will benefit from this technological roll-out? (ii) The SABC may perform well in terms of providing access to services, but access to what (content)? (iii) Does the public have the necessary (media) literacy to use the media in terms of development needs and what is done to increase (media) literacy? (iv) How does access address language, educational and cultural needs?

New media is far removed from the realities of the majority of people who do not have access to new media. If they do have access, it is mainly institution-based access through schools, libraries and civic centres, where, as research shows (cf. Conradie, 1998), problems related to management, technical support and skills, and user knowledge (how to use the new media and towards what purposes) prevail. Without developing countries first progressing towards resolving their socio-economic and (media) literacy problems, the “digital divide” will grow. Without resolving the problem of unemployment the lack of access will increase as the ability to afford goods and services decreases, leading to shrinking levels of demand (cf. Duncan, [sa]: 191) In its turn, unemployment will have an impact on the advertising industry. Advertiser-driven-media, as the majority of media in South Africa are, will have to compete more fiercely for a shrinking layer of upper-income earners.

5.3 Paradoxes related to funding

When it gets to funding, the paradoxes are multiple.

As Price and Raboy (2001: 7) clearly formulates it:

All being said, and all being mainly normative in nature, the biggest problem confronting public service broadcasting in the new media environment, is funding. Public service broadcasting comes at a price, financially, in the capacity of the state to tolerate criticism and keep its hands off management, and, in the resources needed to nurture an audience against the pressures of the persuasive and appealing channels of a newly opened global bazaar of entertainment (and information). In economies that must contend with balancing extraordinary claims on a struggling budget, public service broadcasting must be widely understood and its principles appreciated for expenditures to be justified. Building a sustainable, accepted public

service broadcaster is a complex task.

How can the problem of funding be approached? A number of alternatives such as sponsorships, voluntary donations, direct government funding, advertising, licence fees, taxing, etcetera, are dealt with by Fourie (2003). Mixed-funding seems to be the way most public service broadcasters are going, yet, as shown by McKinsey & Company (1999), the paradox is as that the higher the advertising figure as a proportion of total revenues is (as is the case with the SABC), the less distinctive a public service broadcaster is likely to be and that dependence on advertising revenues creates a conflict of interest that prevents the public service broadcaster from meeting its public service obligations.

Apart from the lack of a culture of paying for services, in developing countries the biggest problem with licence fees is that people often do not have the money to pay such fees. This is in addition to the problem, as pointed out by Steemers (2003: 124), that the licence fee (alone) may not allow public service broadcasters to do everything they wish to participate in the digital revolution, at the most to concentrate on programming rather on profit-making.

The policy challenge is thus to secure funding for PSB that would be realistic and substantial enough to allow the public broadcaster to fulfill its public mandate in a competitive market. The challenge as such is paradoxical.

5.4 Paradoxes related to content

Many examples can be sited of how the market approach contradicts the principles related to PSB content. Although often open for empirical investigation, critics are almost unanimous in their view that program strategies in line with the market orientation has eroded PSB’s role in and claims to provide, amongst others, highquality and innovative programming, be a

standard-setter, provide service programming close to peoples’ specific needs, and provide diversity, all of which that cannot be provided by private broadcasters. (Cf. Fourie, 2003 for a more in depth discussion of the principles related to the PSB content.) In short, the problems related to content stems directly from the inherent dualism between quality and quantity.

In developing countries PSB easily succumbs to the attractiveness and affordability of purchasing programmes and/or programme formats from the “outside”, instead of producing independently and creatively, and by so-doing, establish an own signature.

Most of the arguments related to content can be taken together in what is increasingly argued to be PSB’s loss of distinctiveness. In the changed media environment, where the public broadcaster exists side by side with private and community broadcasters, it is increasingly difficult to differentiate between them and to justify the argument of market failure by proving that private broadcasters can and will, if regulated, not produce quality, diversity, cater for minorities, be innovate, create new slots, new genres, and set the pace.

Closely related to the problem of distinctiveness is programme scheduling. With this the paradox is that PSB programming often leans towards the market approach’s emphasis on popularized prime-time scheduling and programming. The little PSB programming that may remain, are usually screened/aired during obscure hours so that those who could gain the most from it, in fact miss it. The lack of distinctiveness and prime-time scheduling is also contributing to the paradox of a growing generation who no longer knows what public service broadcasting is, means and could be. This in itself is threatening the relevance of any debate about the future of PSB. After ten years of “democratising” broadcasting in South Africa - “democratising” often used as a synonym for “privatisation” and “liberalisation” - it is doubtful if a study such as that reported by Holtz-Bacha (2003:112) in Germany, will yield any significant results in South Africa, in the sense that respondents, especially amongst the younger generation, will probably be unable to distinguish between public and commercial. At the same time, the older generation of especially black viewers may have a very negative impression of public service broadcasting, having been subjected to the apartheid propaganda of the SABC as state broadcaster in the era of apartheid.

To conclude: The dilemma, if not the paradox, of public service broadcasting is clear. On the one hand public broadcasters have to adhere to public service obligations. On the other hand, if they fail to compete in the market environment and to rise to technological and competitive challenges, they can not afford their public service obligations and will loose their audiences in the process. As Steemers (2002:19) formulates it:

...if they seek to concentrate their efforts on popular programming, then they are bound to be accused of neglecting their public service remit, which also threatens their claim to licence fee funding. If they occupy the cultural high ground to provide those things which commercial media do not, they risk marginalisation and cutting themselves adrift from public support and ultimately adequate funds.

6 IN SEARCH OF A NEW MODEL

In the light of the paradoxes paraphrased above and the irreversibility of the new and converging media environment, researchers increasingly emphasise the need for a new policy model that takes cognisance of

• the diversity of forms that PSB takes at different sites (cf. Jacka 2003:188) • is not restricted to existing public service institutions (cf. Steemers, 2003:128-129) • is based on industrial logic (cf. Alm & Lowe, 2003: 223) • is access driven (cf Van Cuilenburg & McQuail, 2003: 205; Raboy 2003:50) • is not only a strategy for PSB’s survival, but for its guaranteed future (cf Duncan [sa.]: 201), and • takes cognisance of the end of broadcasting as it is known (cf. Ed Richards (senior partner: strategy and market development of Britain’s Ofcom), 2004.)

Earlier arguments about PSB’s distinctive role in democracy (cf. Garnham (1996); Curran (1992); Murdock (1992); Keane 1995); Tracey (1998)) are challenged. They are regarded by some authors as being modernist views in the context of outdated conceptualisations of an “ideal democracy” in which the emphasis is mainly on representation and participation. (Cf. e.g. Jacka, 2003.) What is needed is a postmodern view of democracy as a changing and evolving phenomenon and a postmodern view and understanding of the media, in the case of television as being a “transmodern” medium (cf. Hartley 1999). Such a view would provide room for taking cognisance of the changing nature of citizenship in a pluralized society (Schudson, 1998), the changed nature of the relationship between audiences and media, and the changed relationship between production, dissemination, interpretation and the use of media and media messages.

As far as social responsibility is concerned, Bardoel and Brants (2003: 181-182) argues that social responsibility is no longer the exclusive asset of public organisations including public broadcasters. In the light of liberalisation, deregulation and self-regulation, social responsibility has shifted from the state and its institutions to social institutions and commercial enterprises. In such circumstances the question arises whether there should be a continuation of the present policy situation in which highly regulated public broadcasters can be expected to fulfill public service obligations alone. Should new policy not be introduced in which both public and commercial broadcasters share social responsibility and public duties?

In short: The question is whether it is still possible to defend PSB in its present institutionalised form and whether the time has not come to search for alternatives that may be better suited to meet changing public needs? 6.1 From PSB institution to PSB genre

In developing countries, the adoption of the market approach has reached a point of almost no return. To counterfeit the negative impact thereof on the potential role of PSB in development and nation building by introducing new and restrictive ownership regulation in the hope that it would restrict growing competition, will not be the answer. Such a step would restrict the growth of the emerging (in some cases already flourishing) private industry and its growing contribution to national economies, as well as the role the private industry could and often want to play in development and nation building. It will also turn the clock back in terms of developing countries coming on par with developed countries.

As far as content is concerned there are many examples of how the private print and broadcast media (which are themselves habitually “for profit” and at the same time “pro patria” - Hartley, 2004:8), are playing a (voluntary) public service communication role and through that contribute to the practice of social responsibility. In South Africa, an abundance of media messages support in one or another way the idea nation building and development. The messages range from print, broadcast, advertisements, soap-operas, talk and phone-in programmes, films, etcetera, to deliberate media and government campaigns. Although the SABC may claim that it alone has an official PSB mandate, in practice all the media support and adhere in different forms to the ideal of development and nation building. Of this the SABC’s social responsibility announcements, soaps, occasional documentaries and discussion programmes form a part, but is in no way exclusive and distinctive. As in the case of big South African financial and industrial corporations, there is hardly a newspaper or magazine group or a private broadcaster without a clearly defined development and nation building project or involvement with such projects, be it through weekly supplements, competitions, festivals and campaigns such as the “Proudly South African” campaign or the celebration of the country’s ten years of democracy.

Within the broader media context it is thus possible to identify a clear South African development and nation building discourse and a distinctive dialogue in telling and debating the country and it’s peoples’ histories, fears, hopes and ideals. In short, in telling the story of development and contributing in different ways to the idea of nation building, the South African media are contributing to a process of “narrative accrual” (Attwood, 1996, in relation

to nation building in Australia). This means that through diverse media messages devoted, related, or referring to development and national issues - be it in dramatic series, soap-operas, advertisements, or in magazine and newspaper articles, the South African story is told and retold. By so-doing, unfolds the media’s constitution of the South African nation as being a nation aware of, involved with, and committed to undoing its wrongs of the past and to focus on a better future for all its people.In the light of this, a way out of the dilemma of PSB in a changed media environment in developing countries, could be to focus on finding ways to ensure and acknowledge broadcasting’s commitment to public service and social responsibility, instead of focussing on the protection of PSB as an institution. The emphasis could rather be on the securement of the values of PSB programming and the outsourcing of these values as embedded in programming of a wide range over the whole spectrum of a broadcasting system.

This could be done by conceptualising and defining PSB as a specific genre characterised (as all genres are) by

• a specific orientation towards a subject matter • a specific style • a specific relationship between communicator(s) and recipient(s), and • expectations from audiences

It is not the objective of this paper to expand on the possible definitions and conventions of such a genre. Here it is simply presented as an alternative idea of thinking about PSB in the changed media environment. Needless to say, the idea needs to be worked out in far more detail. A valuable theoretical point of departure could be genre theory and criticism (film theory and visual communication) . At this stage, suffice it to say, that in defining PSB as a genre the ideal content principles of public service broadcasting could be used as a cornerstone. That is work that has, independent of its form (be it documentary, drama, magazine programmes, current affairs, educational programmes)

• the development of audiences in matters related to national development, national history, culture and identity as its subject matter• adhere to the principles of distinctiveness and creativity • perform the “journalistic grammar of democratic political conduct” (cf. Garnham, 2003:195) and are thus investigative, revealing and sets the table for debate.

Such a genre could embrace the values of PSB as argued by Alm and Lowe (2003:223) in their work on the outsourcing of core PSB competencies, namely content that

• nurture, support and defend cultural pluralism • instill a sense of security and reliability, and

• set standards for quality and professionalism

Analysis may prove that all of the above is already happening in the South African media’s development and nation building discourse.

As far as the regulation of such a genre is concerned, most developing countries have designed local content policies applicable to all broadcasters and regulated by means of quota systems. This was primarily done to counterfeit media and cultural imperialism. In a similar way, and within the context of local content policies, a public service/social responsibility genre could be regulated. Funds in the form of incentives to the whole spectrum of broadcasters could be made available instead of trying to address the problem(s) of funding and regulating a single so-called public service institution in competition with all other broadcasters. Within the jurisdiction of the regulator (in the case of South Africa, ICASA) an agency for public service programming could be considered, similar to the New Zealand on Air (NZoA) funding body for local content (Cf. Horrocks, 2004). Although on another level, South Africa already has an example in this regard, namely the Media Development and Diversity Agency (cf. South Africa 2002(b)), responsible for the support of the development of community media.

In conclusion, focussing on a public service/social responsibility genre across the spectrum of the broadcasting industry could be a beginning to address the numerous paradoxes with which present PSB policy is faced and the tensions that arise from the dichotomies between public/private, culture/market, service/profit, national/global, citizen/consumer, quality/quantity. It could, in a developing country, acknowledge the need for social responsibility across the board, while at the same time providing room for the media to develop itself. It could stimulate local production and the local production industry and, by so doing, contribute to the unemployment question, apart from contributing to the development of an unique South African style.

In terms of access, focussing on a PSB genre and getting rid of what increasingly seems to be an artificial distinction between public, private and community broadcasting, could lead the public/audiences (fragmented as they may be) to be more exposed to social responsibility content. By so-doing, a beginning can be made to address the problem of the information rich/poor divide. As far as the rollout of technology towards a universal service is concerned, there is no reason why this could not be regulated in order to assure the private industry’s contribution in this regard, as has happened in, for example, the telecommunications sector.

On the macro theoretical level, moving beyond PSB as an institution and focussing on PSB as a genre would be in-line with postmodern thinking which, amongst others, include, the

need to think and analyse media, including a specific medium, within the broader context of the “semiosphere” (cf. Hartley, 2004: 20) of media messages.

7 Conclusion

In the preceding parts the impact of the market approach on PSB, with specific reference to developing countries and using South African PSB as a case study, was sketched. The purpose was to show how the market approach affects PSB’s potential role in development and nation building and hampers it to fully fulfill its social responsibility role. Given the numerousparadoxes that confronts PSB policy in the changed media environment, it was suggested that a new policy model could move beyond PSB as an institution and perhaps begin to focus on PSB as a genre.

Endnotes

References

Alm, A & Lowe GF. 2003. Outsourcing core competencies?, in Broadcasting & convergence: New articulations of the public service remit, edited by GF Lowe & T Hujanen. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom. Attwood, B (ed). 1996. In the age of Mabo: History, Aborigines and Australia. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.

Baines, G. 1998. The rainbow nation? Identity and nation building in post-apartheid South Africa. Mots Pluriels 7: 1 - 11. [O]. Available: Accessed on 2004/02/26.

Banda, F. 2003. Community Radio Broadcasting in Zambia: A policy perspective. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

Bardoel, J & Brants, K. 2003. Public broadcasters and social responsibility in the Netherlands, in Broadcasting & convergence: New articulations of the public service remit, edited by GF Lowe & T Hujanen. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Blumler, J. 1993. Making money with mission: Purity versus pragmatism in public broadcasting. European Journal of Communications 8: 403-424.

Bonthuys, J. 2004. Armes nog in skadu. Beeld, 17 Maart.

Canada. 2001. “Response to the Government White Paper, A new future for communications (2001) by an NGO specially assembled for the commenting on the governments’s broadcasting policy.

Chalaby, JK & Segell, G. 1999. The broadcasting media in the age of risk. The advent of digital television. New media & society 1(3): 351-368.

Classen, L. 2003. End SABC dominance, says Katz. Business Day, 7 February 2003.

Conradie, P. 1998. Using information and communication technologies for development at centres in rural communities: lessons learned. Communicare 7(1): 97-116.

Council of the European Union. 1997. Draft Treaty of Amsterdam. Protocol on the System of Public Broadcasting in the Member States. Brussels: European Commission.

Curran, J. 1992. Mass media and democracy: A reappraisal, in Mass media and society, edited by James Curran and Michael Gurevitch. London, Edward Arnold.

Declaration of Windhoek. 2004. Declaration of Windhoek, 3 May 1991. Available: Accessed on 2004-05-03.

Du Plooy, GM. 2001. Genre analysis, in Media Studies Volume 2: Content, Audiences and Production, edited by PJ Fourie. Cape Town: Juta.

Duncan, J. [Sa]. Broadcasting and the national question. South African broadcast media in the age of neo-liberalism. Braamfontein, Johannesburg: Freedom of Expression Institute.

Ensor, L. 2002. New entrants cut into SABC’s revenues. Business Day, 13 September 2002.

Ensor, L. 2003. SABC in appeal for more state funding. Business Day, 03 September 2003. Feintuck, M. 1999. Media regulation. Public interest and the law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Fourie, PJ. 1988. Aspects of film and television communication. Cape Town: Juta.

Fourie, PJ. 1992. Diskoersontleding as ‘n metode in die sosiale wetenskappe. Communicatio. South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research 18(1):19-29.

Fourie, PJ (ed). 2001(a). Media studies: Volume 1: Institutions, Theories and Issues. Cape Town: Juta.

Fourie, PJ (ed). 2001(b). Media studies: Volume 2: Content, Audiences and Production. Cape Town: Juta.

Fourie, PJ. 2002. Rethinking the role of the media in South Africa. Communicare 21(1): 17-41.

Fourie, PJ. 2003. The future of public broadcasting in South Africa: the need to return to basic principles. Communicatio. South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research 29(1):148-182.

Fourie, PJ & Wigston. D. 2002. Das Mediensystem Südafrikas, in Internasionales Handbuch Medien. Hans Bredow-Institut. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

Garnham, A. 2000. Public policy issues for UK broadcasting, in e-brittannia, edited by S Barnett. Luton: Luton University Press.

Garnham, N. 2003. A response to Elizabeth Jacka’s “Democracy as Defeat”. Television & New Media, 4(2): 193 - 200.

Garnham, N 1996. The media and the public sphere, in Communicating politics, edited by P. Golding et al. Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press.

Harber, A. 2004. Vibrant media 10 years into freedom. Sunday Times 22 February:17.

Harber, A. 2003. Two fat press ladies make a meal of it. Business Day 31 October:3.

Harrison, J & Woods, L. 2001. Defining European public broadcasting. European Journal of Communication 14 (4): 477-504.

Hartley, J. 2004. Television, nation and indigenous media. Television & New Media 5(1): 7- 25.

Hartley, J. 1999. Uses of television. London: Routledge.

Holtz-Bacha, C. 2003. Of markets and supply. Public broadcasting in Germany, in Broadcasting & convergence: New articulations of the public service remit, edited by GF Lowe & T Hujanen. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Horrocks, R. 2004. Turbulent television. The New Zealand experiment. Television & New Media, 5(1): 55-68.

Horwitz, RB. 1989. The irony of regulatory reform: The deregulation of American telecommunications. NY: Oxford University Press.

Hujanen, T & Lowe, GF. 2003. Broadcasting and convergence. Rearticulating the future past, in Broadcasting & convergence: New articulations of the public service remit, edited by GF Lowe & T Hujanen. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Independent Broadcasting Authority. 1996. Triple Inquiry into Cross Media Ownership, Local Content and South African Music and the Protections and Viability of Public Broadcasting Services. [O]. Available: Accessed on 2003/09/15.Jacka, E. 2003. “Democracy as defeat”. The impotence of arguments for public service broadcasting. Television and New Media, 4 (2): 177-191.

Keane, J. 1995. Structural transformations of the public sphere. Communication Review 1 (1): 1 -22.

Lawrence, J. 2004. Enuki is in the news. Saturday Star, 24 April.

Louw, E. [Sa]. New Voices over the air. The transformation of the South African Broadcasting Corporation in a Changing South Africa. Unpublished manuscript.

Lowe, GF & Hujanen, T (eds). 2003. Broadcasting & convergence: New articulations of the public service remit. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Mabuza, E. 2003(b). SABC defends its role in commercial radio. Business Day, 19 February 2003.

Mabuza, E. 2003(a). Increasing numbers is in the interest of industry. Business Day, 21 February 2003.

Mathebula, M. 2004. English, English everywhere. This Day, 19 February:15.

Matlou, H. 2004. An evaluation of the impact of corporatisation on the South African Broadcasting Corporation. Unpublished Master’s Dissertation. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

Mawson, N. 2004. `Hands off online content’. Mail&Guardian, 5-12 February:29.

McChesney, RW. 1997. The mythology of commercial media and the contemporary crisis of public broadcasting. Spry Memorial Lecture, Montreal, 2 December 1997/Vancouver 4 December 1997.

McNair, B. 2002. Public service broadcasting in the UK: the case of political access TV and radio. Paper presented to the working session on Broadcasting in Europe, Conference of the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR). Barcelona, July 2002. McNair, B & Hibberd, M. 2003. Mediated access. Political broadcasting, the Internet and democratic participation, in Broadcasting & convergence: New articulations of the public service remit, edited by GF Lowe & T Hujanen. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Media Institute of Southern Africa. 2003. Summary Report on Regional Television Seminar, 1 August 2003. Johannesburg: MISA.

Media Institute of Southern Africa. 2004(a). Media Statement: “So this is Demoicracy?: State of Media Freedom in Southern Africa”. Johannesburg: Misa.

Media Institute of Southern Africa. 2004(b). Misa-SA Media Brief 8; 17. Johannesburg: MISA..

Monare, M. 2004. Interference in SABC editorial function is structural problem. The Sunday Independent, 25 April:8.

Murdock, G. 1992. Citizens, consumers and public culture, in Media cultures, Reappraising transnational media, edited by Michael Skovland and Kom Schroder. London: Routledge.

Näränen, P. 2003. European regulation of digital television. The opportunity lost and found?, in Broadcasting & convergence: New articulations of the public service remit, edited by GF Lowe & T Hujanen. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Naspers. 2003. Naspers Limited Annual Report 2003. Cape Town: Naspers.

Pitout, M. 1996. Televisie en resepsiestudie: ‘n Analise van kykersinterpretasie van die seep-opera “Egoli: Plek van Goud”. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa. Price, ME & Raboy, M (eds). 2001. Public service broadcasting in transition: a documentary reader. Brussels: European Commission. Compiled by the Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy for the European Institute for the Media. [O]. Available: Accessed on 2003/03/13.

Punie, Y, Burgelman, J-C, Bogdanowicz, M, Desruelle, P & Ducatel, K. 2002. The future of online media industries. Fact & figures, drivers of change and validated scenarios for 2005 and beyond. Seville: European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technology Studies.

Raboy, M. 2001. National, transnational and global approaches to public media. Paper presented to the conference “Rethinking public media in a transnational era”, New York University, January 2001.

Raboy, M. 2003. Rethinking broadcasting policy in a global media environment, in Broadcasting & convergence: New articulations of the public service remit, edited by GF Lowe & T Hujanen. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Richards, E. 2004. How light a touch? Journal of the RTS, January 2004:6-10.

Rumphorst, W. 2001. A model public service broadcasting law. Bulgarian Institute for Legal Development. [O]. Available: Accessed on 2003-04-15.

Sampson, T & Lugo, J. 2003. The discourse of convergence. A neo-liberal Trojan Horse, in Broadcasting & convergence: New articulations of the public service remit, edited by GF Lowe & T Hujanen. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom. Scannell, P. 1990. Public service broadcasting: the history of a concept, in Understanding television, edited by A Goodwin & G Whannell. London: Routledge.

Scannell, P. 1990. Public service broadcasting: the history of a concept, in Understanding television, edited by A Goodwin & G Whannell. London: Routledge.

Simpson, M. 1994. The experience of nation-building: some lessons for South Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies 20(3).

Sinclair, J & Harrison, M. 2004. Globalization, nation and television in Asia. The cases of India and China. Television & New Media, 5(1): 41-54.

Smuts, D. 2002. Broadcasting requires neutral regulator. Business Day, 28 October 2002.

South Africa. 2000. Independent Broadcasting Authority Act (Act 13 of 2000). Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa. 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996). Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa. 1999. Broadcasting Act (Act 4 of 1999). Pretoria: Government Printer.

South African Broadcasting Corporation. 2003. South African Broadcasting CorporationAnnual Review 2002/2003. Auckland Park, Johannesburg: SABC.

South Africa. 2002 (a). Broadcasting Amendment Act (Act 64 of 2002). Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa. 2002(b). Media Development and Diversity Agency Act (Act 14 of 2002). Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa. 2002(c). Department of Social Development. Findings of the Committee of Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of Social Security. [O].Available: Accessed on: 2002-06-27.

South Africa. 2002(d). South Africa Yearbook 2002/03. Yeoville, Johannesburg: STE Publishers/ Pretoria: Government Communication and Information System (GCIS).

Southern African Development Community. 2004. Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport. [O].Available: Star, 13 December 2002: “South Africa gears up for a more inclusive broadcasting service”.

Steemers, J. 2002. Changing channels: the redefinition of public service broadcasting for the digital age. [O].Available: http:/www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/jointsessions/Manpapers/w24/steemers.pdf. Accessed on: 2002-04-03.

Steemers, J. 2003. Public service broadcasting is not dead yet. Strategies in the 21 century, in in Broadcasting & convergence: New articulations of the public service remit, edited by GF Lowe & T Hujanen. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Stein, L & Sinha, N. 2002. New global media and communication policy: the role of the state in the 21st century, in Handbook of new media. Social shaping and consequences of ICTs, edited by LA Lievrouw & S Livingstone. London: Sage.

Syvertsen, T. 2003. Challenges to public television in the era of convergence and commercialisation. Television & New Media 4(2): 155-175.

The Star. 2002.South Africa gears up for a more inclusive broadcasting service. 13 December: 13.

Thomas, AM. 1960. Audience, market and public. An evaluation of Canadian Broadcasting. Canadian Communications 1: 16-47.

Thomass, B. 2003. Knowledge society and public sphere. Two concepts for the remit, in Broadcasting & convergence: New articulations of the public service remit, edited by GF Lowe & T Hujanen. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Tleane, C. 2003. Praat in many tongues. Sowetan 15 July:11.

Tracey, M. 1998. The decline and fall of public service broadcasting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

TV’s success story. 2003. Mail & Guardian,14-20 March.

Underwood, M. 2002. Mass media: broadcasting systems.[O].Available: . Accessed on 2002/03/13

Unesco. 1998. Action Plan for Cultural Policies for Development. Adopted by the Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development. Stockholm, 30 March - 2 April 1998. Paris: Unesco.

Van den Boogaard. 1998. Gesprek met socioloog Dominique Wolton: Communicatie is ons lot. NRC Handelsblad., 15 Mei 1998. [O]. Available: Accessed on: 2003-04-08.

Van Zyl, J. 2002. Community broadcasting, the new public media in South Africa? Paper presented at the Open Media Conference, New York University, 11-14 January 2001. [O]. Available: . Accessed on: 2002/04/08.

Van Zyl, J. 2004. Jamming the airwaves. Mail&Guardian 16-22 January 2004:1.

Van Cuilenburg, J & McQuail, D. 2003. Towards a new communications policy paradigm. European Journal of Communication 18 (2): 181-207.

Vartanova, E & Zassoursky, YN. 2003. Television in Russia. Is the concept of PSB relevant?, in Broadcasting & convergence: New articulations of the public service remit, edited by GF Lowe & T Hujanen. Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Wigston, D. 2001. A South African Media Map, in Media studies: Volume 1: Institutions, Theories and Issues, edited by PJ Fourie. Cape Town: Juta.

World Wide Worx. 2004. The Goldstuck Report: Internet access in South Africa, 2004.[O]. Available: Accessed on 2004-05-03.