Media24’s failed attempt to stifle diversity

Welkom community newspaper Gold Net News was forced to close its doors in 2009 after Media24 opened a competitor publication, Forum, which was heavily cross-subsidised and offered much lower advertising rates, despite running at a loss.

Ten months after the closure of Gold Net News, Forum closed its doors, and another Media24 community newspaper, Vista, has remained the only local publication. It was clearly Media24’s intention to use its local paper to undercut Gold Net News.

Media freedom and media diversity together form a cornerstone of democracy. Without media diversity, media freedom means little, and nowhere is this truer than in South Africa, where apartheid created massive economic inequalities that remain deeply entrenched. These inequalities are reflected in a media landscape dominated by powerful political and corporate elites, where community media is largely disregarded.

When the editorial independence of community media is compromised by political interference, and when community media workers face serious threats for doing their jobs, these stories often do not make it into the mainstream media narrative or, at best, are relegated to the back pages. Who remembers the killing of community journalist Mike Tshele? Or the burning down of Karabo FM?

And on top of these sorts of threats, community media workers must contend with the likes of Naspers, the wealthiest media company in Africa and the parent company of Media24.

Naspers epitomises the threat of corporate control of the media. The company was formed a century ago to give a greater voice to Afrikaner Nationalist aspirations, and a number of future apartheid-era politicians soon rose through its ranks. Naspers was instrumental in installing the National Party in power. It became the mouthpiece of apartheid and the biggest apologist for the National Party’s endless crimes. When the mainstream Afrikaner press was given the opportunity to come clean at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and apologise for its role in propping up apartheid, it chose not to. Only in July of this year, two decades late, did Naspers finally offer a half-hearted, disingenuous apology for its complicity in apartheid.

Having benefitted from decades of support from the Afrikaner nationalist establishment, Naspers continues to benefit tremendously from the current dispensation, often at the expense of other players in the media world. It is evident that the power of Naspers gives it undue influence over the government, especially the Department of Communications.

This has become increasingly clear over the last few years, where the lack of transparency in interactions between Naspers companies and the SABC and DoC have left several civil society organisations questioning whether these agreements are in the public’s interest or a collusion of state and corporate interests. The Department has made a complete U-turn on its digital migration policy and now appears to be singing exactly the same tune as Naspers. If the DoC pushes ahead with its amended policy for migrating to digital television it would give Multichoice a clear advantage. These developments came shortly after opaque deals signed in 2013 between the SABC and Multichoice, another Naspers subsidiary, which could result in d control of large chunks of the public broadcaster’s archive - its “family jewels” - being handed over to the company.

Sadly, Media24’s actions in the Free State are hardly exceptional. In a policy statement on media freedom and diversity, adopted in 2012, the Right2Know Campaign warned that “Community and small commercial print media also face unfair competition from the monopolies who buy-out successful publications, use their control of print and distribution to frustrate them, and/or launch competing titles with lower (cross-subsidised) advertising rates and access to large advertising sales departments and syndicated editorial content.”

In the mainstream press much is said about political interference in the media – no doubt a very serious issue – but, unsurprisingly, much less is said about corporate threats to the media. In a country as complex as South Africa, with our diversity of political beliefs, cultures and creeds and our vast disparities, the risk of greater media commodification is that the voices of the marginalised will be squeezed out further and the media narrative will become more restrictive, homogenous and dull. Corporate media will continue to do what it has been doing – avoid upsetting advertisers, cater to wealthier citizens and prioritise middle class and politically centrist views, and ‘streamline’ newsrooms by laying off staff and relying on more syndicated content – all of which is bad news for media diversity.

In the interests of an inclusive democracy, where views of people from all walks of life are adequately represented in our media and in public discourse, it is vital that we push back against monopolistic practices and state-corporate collusion in the media.

The latest Competition Tribunal findings, which will hopefully be an important precedent, should remind us of the need for a multiplicity of perspectives, and that means much greater support for community and alternative media.

Reddy is the organiser for Media Freedom and Diversity and Conradie is the organiser for Access to Information at the Right2Know Campaign. Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of GroundUp.