ABSTRACT
This book had its precursor as a special issue of Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, which offered a response to debates in South Africa around what has widely been perceived as new and intensifying threats to press freedom. Debates around press freedom are of course hardly limited to South Africa – the relationships between media, state and civil society have been an ongoing matter of concern in the field of journalism and media studies in Africa (see for instance Hyden, Leslie, & Ogundimu 2003; Bourgault 1995; Eribo & Jong-Ebot 1997). Foremost among these contests has been the one between the conflicting normative frameworks of liberal democracy and ‘development’ journalism. The latter approach to journalism, common in post-colonial African states, sets as the norm a collaborative relationship between media and governments (Christians, Glasser, McQuail, Nordenstreng and White 2009: 198). In practice this collaboration often comes down to the expectation that media should support governments in attainting their economic, political, and cultural development goals by being a partner rather than an adversary. Development journalism has indeed been vulnerable to abuse by postcolonial governments that wanted to avoid criticism by impeding the freedom of the media (Xiaoge 2009:359). Recent developments in South Africa, where the normative frameworks of liberal
democracy and development journalism have also been part of a larger negotiation of the roles and responsibilities of the post-apartheid media (Wasserman 2006), have raised concerns among journalists, journalism scholars and members of civil society both in the country and internationally, that the public sphere in this ‘new democracy’ (Voltmer 2006) may be shrinking. At the same time, critics (see Francis Nyamnjoh’s foreword to this volume, and Steven Friedman and Peter McDonald’s contributions) have pointed out that the debates around press freedom in this context have often been marked by a simplistic binary between media and state, in which commercial media are often seen as inherently ‘independent’ rather than political and economic role players that themselves are positioned within an array of power relations. In a debate that has become characterised by rhetorical throwbacks to the struggle against apartheid, making use of simplistic dualities such as ‘freedom’ versus ‘control’, ‘self-regulation’ versus ‘statutory intervention’, the ‘actually existing’ mediated public sphere (Fraser 1990) in South Africa is often left under-examined while a battle to defend pre-conceived normative concepts – often removed from the everyday lived experience of the majority of citizens – is being fought out. This volume wants to respond to two recent developments in South Africa which
have widely been seen as representing a threat to press freedom, but at the same time
offer a critical look at the debate around press freedom itself. Contributors to the volume take a comparative look at the situation in South Africa within a broader, global context of transitions to democracy and globalised marketisation of the media, while also bringing critical scrutiny to bear on the specifics of African examples that may serve to illuminate broader trends. The first of the two recent developments in South Africa that this volume responds
to, is the passing in 2011by the South African Parliament of the Protection of State Information Bill. This Bill, dubbed the ‘Secrecy Bill’ by its opponents, is seen as having the potential to reduce the level of access to information, by giving officials the power to classify information as confidential, secret and top secret, thereby preventing not only journalists but also members of the citizenry and civil society generally from accessing important information that could keep the security apparatuses of government accountable (see Wasserman & Jacobs 2012 for a fuller discussion). The Bill was met with a strong response from civil society, manifesting in a countrywide ‘Right to Know’ campaign by an alliance of media and civil society organisations (See www.r2k. org.za/). The Bill was also the focus of much media coverage and debate, although critics like Steven Friedman, in this volume, argue that the media have incorrectly framed the Bill as an attack on press freedom in the first instance, but paid less attention to its adverse effects on social movements and civil society organisations. At the time of going to print, the Bill was still being debated by the National
Council of Provinces. In a surprise development, the ANC delegation to the committee discussing the Bill proposed important concessions that would include protection to those revealing classified information deemed to be in the public interest. The second development that caused concern about press freedom in South Africa,
has been a proposed statutory Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT), suggested by the ruling African National Congress (ANC) as an alternative to the appeals procedure in the current system of press self-regulation, which they see as biased towards the media industry. The relationship between the press and the ruling party in South Africa has been fractious ever since the democratisation of the country, but as Jane Duncan points out in her article in this volume, the ANC has been focusing its attack on the system of press self-regulation since its National Congress in 2007. At the National General Council meeting in 2010, the ANC passed a resolution stating that the existing selfregulatory system for the print media was ineffective, and called on parliament to conduct a public enquiry into the establishment of the MAT. These moves were also met with strong resistance from journalists, media academics
and members of the public. Concerns were expressed about the impact that statutory regulation and the resultant limitations to press freedom may have on journalism education. In a show of solidarity, 20 South African journalism schools brought out a statement in September 2010, expressing fears about the effect of the proposed regulation on journalism in the country and its potentially negative impact on students. The statement (which may be accessed here: https://mzan.si/YPKu) noted that the South African media are not without fault, and that part of journalism scholarship’s role is to continue to point to these shortcomings and to suggest ways of improving the media’s democratic role. Such critique, it went on to note, can only bear fruit in an environment that ‘allows for unhindered investigation, the gathering of sound empirical evidence, and the free exchange of ideas’. Further support came from international colleagues. Joe Foote, convenor of the
World Journalism Education Council, an alliance of 29 organisations that represents
journalism educators and trainers worldwide, wrote a letter asking pres Jacob Zuma to reconsider the proposed Protection of Information Bill and the Media Appeals Tribunal. As a first step towards these goals, the School of Journalism and Media Studies at
Rhodes University in Grahamstown, South Africa, hosted a colloquium on the topic ‘Media, democracy and transformation since 1994: An assessment’. The colloquium, supported by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung’s Fesmedia Africa programme, and the Open Society Foundation (South Africa), brought together journalism educators, scholars and researchers to make research-based interventions into the heated debates. Politicians, policy-makers and public intellectuals also engaged with the academic papers. In response to the ANC’s call for tougher regulation, the Press Council embarked on
a process of self-reflection and reform by way of a series of public hearings around the country. These hearings were, however, very poorly attended, drawing only a few representatives from industry and the public at large. It was speculated that this poor showing might be taken as an indication of the poor support for the self-regulatory process amongst the public at large. The media industry then set up its own process of introspection and public consultation. The Press Freedom Commission (www.pressfreedomcomm) was set up in June 2011 as a mechanism that could investigate regulation of the press by considering submissions of a wide range of stakeholders. At the time of going to print, the final report was just released, containing recommendations to change the self-regulatory system into one of co-regulation, with stronger representation of citizens and stricter sanctions on offending publications. Although welcomed by the ANC, the impact of these recommendations on the eventual decision on whether to establish the MAT or not, was still to be seen. Regardless of what the final outcomes of these processes of contestation around
press freedom in South Africa may be, they do give cause for a renewed consideration of the state of press freedom in Africa. This volume, although focusing on South Africa as one of the most recent examples of such conflicts, wants to position these latest developments within a comparative perspective on the relationships between state, media and civil society in Africa. Furthermore, because the negotiation of these relationships in the South African case also relates to that country’s recent – and in many ways, ongoing - transition to a democratic society, comparisons with other ‘new democracies’ that came into being in the ‘Third Wave’ of democratisation in the 1990s are also appropriate (see for instance Wasserman 2010). In his chapter that opens this volume, Colin Sparks positions the South African media in the post-apartheid era within the theoretical debates in the field of ‘transitology’ and democratisation theory. Sparks questions the ‘transitological’ paradigm for studying political and social change that has been developed in the political sciences, especially when countries such as contemporary China and Russia are considered, and instead suggests a model centred on the process of ‘elite continuity and renewal’. Sparks’ article argues that this model allows the South African case to be compared to other political and economic transitions. Sparks argues that South Africa shares some of the features of other transitional societies, but that there are also notable and important differences. The domination of the democratic system by one strong party and the enduring influence of mass workingclass organisations like the confederation of trade unions, Cosatu, are foremost among the forces that impacts on the South African media in ways that differ from other transitional societies under consideration, Sparks argues. For Sparks, the South African example represents one of the most completely ‘democratic’ of the transitions under
investigation. The article examines the reasons for the relative absence of direct political intervention in the South African media in the first 15 years after the establishment of democracy, and the reasons for recent attempts to restrict the freedom of the press. Jiafei Yin’s chapter continues this comparative perspective on press freedom debates,
by juxtaposing the development of an independent and free press in South Africa with similar processes in India – two countries from the least-developed regions of the world. Yin’s comparative study of media explores common challenges and unique barriers to press freedom in these two countries of the Global South by examining the impact of colonial histories, politics and business on the press. A brief overview of the current status of press freedom in Africa and Asia provides context to this examination. The next chapter, by Guy Berger, is rooted in the South African case, but explores
the self-regulation of that country’s press in relation to regulatory processes internationally. Berger warns that the ‘borrowings’ of regulatory frameworks from other parts of the world can result in forms of appropriation that are expedient, but not necessarily the most appropriate for the South African continent. The article unpacks these issues around appropriation and contextualisation of self-regulatory frameworks, and proposes three broad criteria that constitute ‘best practice’ for ‘borrowing’. These criteria are (a) analysing purpose and fitness-for-purpose within extant contexts; (b) developing general principles; and (c) being fit-for-purpose within the destination context. The chapter also distinguishes between different dimensions of ‘statutory’ regulation. A familiar tension impinging on the freedom of the press in Africa results from
various normative perspectives on the role the press should play in economic development. As mentioned above, the frameworks of liberal democracy and ‘development journalism’ are often seen to be in tension in normative visions for the press in African countries. In his chapter Terje Skjerdal examines a case study from Ethiopia, to consider how that country’s development journalism policy compares with other development journalism models. Drawing on in-depth interviews with journalists in the Ethiopian state media, the study seeks to establish how journalists view development journalism as a professional framework. The study uncovers several problems in the application of the policy to actual media practice. The divergent views of the role journalism should play in a developing African
society is also the topic of Gabriël Botma’s contribution to this volume. Botma traces the ‘hostile standoff’ between the print media and returns to one of the earliest political debates on the issue of the role of the media in the new South Africa. The article analyses the discourses emerging from a 1992 conference, hosted in Johannesburg by the Nieman Institute, to establish the various visions and discursive strategies of the different political stakeholders at that sensitive stage in negotiations. Botma shows how the media adopted the neoliberal, pluralist view of the erstwhile National Party, suggesting that this approach lies at the root of the conflict between the print media and the ANC. The ANC’s more recent policy proposals are the subject of Jane Duncan’s article.
Duncan considers the merits of the ANC’s arguments against the existing system of self-regulation, as well as the media’s counter-arguments against a proposed Media Appeals Tribunal. Duncan argues that the ANC’s proposal for the establishment of a statutory Media Appeals Tribunal fails to deepen the debate about media
accountability in the face of declining media standards, as a result of media concentration and commercialisation. Following on the research presented in the above chapters, are two critiques of the
South African media and the dominant debates about press freedom. Steven Friedman puts forward an argument that the mainstream press’s response to real and perceived threats to freedom of expression has revealed a middle-class bias. In analysing the journalistic preoccupations that these responses seek to defend and the phrasing of the press’ attempts to oppose state control, Friedman argues that the mainstream media’s understanding of freedom is restricted to the liberties of the suburban middle classes. This positioning of the press, in his view, makes it increasingly unlikely that free expression can be effectively defended. In his reflection on recent South African debates about media freedom, Peter
McDonald argues that the press invoked the spectre of apartheid censorship as a polemical move to resist threats to their freedom. When these historical parallels are analysed critically, the backward look to the apartheid era ‘fuels cynicism, Afropessimism and a host of other dubious feelings’. McDonald expresses doubts that the most recent threats to the freedom of expression constitute a return to apartheid censorship, and argues that there is no moral equivalence between what happened then, and what is happening now. The chapters collected in this book together present varied perspectives on the
ongoing debates about press freedom on the continent, illuminating the South African case from a range of angles. This comparative approach to journalism studies in Africa is central to the editorial vision and scope underlying Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies’ approach to research in journalism studies.
