19 June 2003
The publication of the draft editorial policies of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) has, as expected and quite correctly, led to a great deal of public discussion and debate.
In the many contributions to this discussion – at least those reported in the media – one issue has received unusual prominence. This is the issue of ‘upward referral’, whereby editorial staff who are unsure of anything consult the next most senior person in the editorial chain of responsibility. This is related to the issue of ‘mandatory referral’, where in certain extraordinary instances, matters have to be referred to the Group Executive, the SABC board or the heads of news depending on their nature.
The ANC is somewhat mystified as to why this proposal should have received such vehement opposition, even within the ranks of the democratic movement.
In its submission on the draft policy, the South African Communist Party (SACP) claims the proposals relating to ‘upward referral’ of editorial decisions “raise the spectre of an invisible censor not accountable to a public process who will unilaterally decide on what is controversial”.
In the context of our country’s politics, and the structural relationship between our government and the public broadcaster, it is not difficult to guess who this supposed “invisible censor” would be.
As the political leader of the Alliance, effectively the governing party in our country, we find it odd and disturbing that the SACP, a member of the Alliance, should think that the ANC threatens press freedom. This is particularly odd and disturbing in the light of the fact that ANC members and supporters sacrificed their lives fighting for this particular freedom.
We would have thought that those who share the sentiment about the “invisible censor” would know that the various provisions in our national constitution and the subsequent and relevant legislation could never have been adopted without the conscious agreement and involvement of the ANC.
We presume that at least some of the people making this argument also know very well that the ANC does not owe its central position in our country’s politics to the media, both public and private.
Even now, during the tenth anniversary of our liberation, we know that the major liberation political tendency in our country has no voice within our media, contrary to other very small, minority political tendencies. We also know that some of these get the media prominence they achieve because those who take editorial decisions within the media are firmly committed to the task to oppose the ANC. They will therefore support and promote anybody opposed to us.
In this regard, there are many takers, including personalities who are seduced by media headlines. Precisely because we have never depended on this established media to achieve our liberation goals, we have no intention to undermine press freedom in order to produce a media that would, ostensibly, permit the continuing struggle for the victory of the national democratic revolution to score new victories.
As happened in earlier phases of this struggle, this revolution will score new victories, despite opposition by the public and private media. We have no particular reason surreptitiously to control the public broadcaster, and have neither the desire nor the programme to do so. We know enough about the evolution of human society to understand that it will take a considerable period of time before our country achieves the common national consciousness, patriotism and value system that other countries take for granted. This outcome cannot be imposed.
The dynamic objective and subjective circumstances that impact on our people will determine the time frames with regard to this result. In the intervening period, the various material, political and ideological forces in our country will each claim to represent “the national will” – each claiming that ‘the people say’! In this regard, neither the public nor the private media is neutral. Within this media at this particular stage of our history, and given the media and other features of this history, the voice of the forces of change is weak and will remain so for some time.
This will perpetuate the phantom situation that the voice representing the minority view will continue to dominate the media, academic and conceptual spheres, as though it was the determinant of what our country would do from one day to the next. It will continue to dominate in the communication of the public message of what is wrong with our country, and what should be done to correct these wrongs.
However, even as these messages are communicated, actual reality will dictate a different agenda and programme for change. Our society continues to reflect a dichotomy of the colonial and apartheid years, in terms of which the dominant social ideas and norms were those of a minority with access to superior material resources, and therefore the possibility and capacity to determine public consciousness. This informs the conviction among some, that for the majority to insist that the public broadcaster should properly reflect its views, activities, values and norms, constitutes a threat to freedom of speech.
Such freedom is deemed to be constrained or denied, on the basis that what we have said would deny the possibility for the public broadcaster to treat those representing one percent of the population on an equal footing with those who represent two-thirds of the population. Because many broadcasters and other controllers of the media in general are part of the one percent, it would be absurd to expect these would argue and act in favour of a system of mass communication that would favour the majority. In this regard, arguments about black faces that speak for the minority are fallacious. He or she that pays the piper calls the tune, regardless of race.
The poor that we represent have no money to pay anybody, including those who have to advertise relatively high-value products and services. Because they are poor, they do not influence editorial policies.
It is fundamentally wrong and unnecessary that a public broadcaster should be influenced by the considerations that affect the commercial media. This is at the heart of the current dispute about the editorial policies of the public broadcaster. Whatever the outcome of this debate, the masses we represent know to whom they should listen as they struggle to determine their future. They do not depend on the media to arrive at this conclusion.
Indeed, the occasion of the debate about the editorial policies of the public broadcaster gives an opportunity to those who take it as given, that they are the determinants of national policy, to reflect on our society critically and with an open mind. Such an approach would tell them that whatever possibilities afforded to them by their material and spiritual power, and whatever the size and strength of the black representatives they can draw into their ranks, the people will not abandon their confidence in those they have known for generations as their true representatives.
Accordingly, the allegiance of these masses to our movement, the ANC, depends on nothing else other than that their representatives are pretty clear about what we need to do to end their oppression and humiliation. What this means is that for us, the ANC, it makes no sense to engage in complex and dangerous processes to manipulate the public broadcaster.
What we have to do, as we did during the most difficult phases of our struggle, is to talk directly to the masses of our people, depending on their intelligence and understanding of their interests and the manner in which our society operates. These masses will continue to act as their own liberators, under their historic representative, the ANC. Our opponents make a fundamental mistake when they think that they can alienate these millions from the genuine liberation agenda.
Presumably, those who oppose ‘upward referral’ for fear of the “invisible censor” are satisfied with the way in which the SABC currently arrives at its editorial decisions and is certain that, currently, there is no “invisible censor not accountable to a public process”.
It is not our intention in this document to comment on the public broadcaster and the quality of its service. As you would know, we have views on this matter, including the state of the media in general. In this regard our positions would certainly differ from those espoused by so-called ‘white liberalism’ in our country. This includes the matter of ‘upward referral’.
We believe that the SABC is correct to raise this issue. Discussion of this question should result in clear and publicly-known lines of responsibility and accountability within the Corporation with regard to editorial policy and programme content. This has nothing to do with censorship or loss of editorial independence.
What the Corporation is proposing is not different from what other public broadcasters do. Of course, it may be that the practices of these broadcasters are also wrong.
However, nobody, including those in our country who have appointed themselves as the best defenders of the concept and practice of the freedom of expression, has suggested that these practices in the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), for instance, constitute the institution of a system of ‘invisible censorship’.
When the late Steve Tshwete introduced legislation to establish the National Sports Commission, the Democratic Party (DP) opposed this new measure.
After he explained that the legislation was to all intents and purposes an exact reproduction of Australian legislation, and therefore consistent with “best international practice”, the DP openly stated that it could trust the Australian government to exercise the powers contained in the legislation, but could not take the same position with regard to our government.
With regard to the matter we are discussing, concerning the public broadcaster, it may very well be that some in our country would have no objection to the BBC adopting the practice of ‘upward referral’, while they would resist its use by the SABC.
We do not have to explain the reason behind this double standard. Necessarily, we must assume that the SACP is not victim to the ideological and political positions that resulted in the highly offensive positions adopted by the DP with regards to the Sports Commission, as with other matters that relate to the role of our government in our country.
We would like to draw attention to the policies and practices of the BBC, a public broadcaster, with regard to the matters our country is discussing, as it responds to the draft editorial policies of the SABC.
Among others, we would like to point to three institutions within the BBC system of governance. One of these is a Board of Governors, equivalent to the Board of the SABC.
The second is the Director General (DG), equivalent to the CEO of the SABC. Interestingly, the BBC DG is also BBC Editor-in-Chief, and is therefore required to have journalistic experience.
The BBC has a Controller of Editorial Policy. This post does not exist in the SABC.
Commenting on the role of the latter, the BBC says:
“His role will be to ensure that the BBC sets and observes the highest ethical and editorial standards…Editorial Policy formulates policy and provides advice across the BBC on issues of editorial and ethical judgement ranging from fairness and impartiality to taste and decency, product prominence and privacy. It reports to the Executive Committee and the Board of Governors on the BBC’s performance.”
One of the ways in which the Controller of Editorial Policy exercises his/her functions is through ‘upward referrals’. Below, we will provide the details relating to these referrals.
Please note that 16 directors, who head divisions, run the day-to-day operations of the BBC and report to the DG. Together with the DG, they constitute the Executive Committee referred to above. They operate all services within the strategic and policy framework of the organisation.
One of the instruments governing the functioning of the BBC is an “Agreement between Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for National Heritage and the British Broadcasting Corporation”. Among other things, this “Agreement” between the UK government and the BBC specifies Programme Standards binding on the BBC. It says:
“5.1 The Corporation shall do all it can to secure that all programmes broadcast or transmitted by or on behalf of or under licence from the Corporation as part of the Home Services:-
- provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter;
- serve the tastes and needs of different audiences and, in particular, in order to show concern for the young are placed at appropriate times;
- treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality, both in the Corporation’s news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy, and do not contain any material expressing the opinion of the Corporation on public affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting and matter contained in programmes which consist of proceedings in either House of Parliament or proceedings of a local authority or a committee of two or more local authorities;
- do not include anything which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling;
- do not involve improper exploitation of any susceptibilities of those watching or listening to its religious programmes or any abusive treatment of the religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination;
- do not include any technical device which, by using images of very brief duration or by any other means, exploits the possibility of conveying a message to, or otherwise influencing the minds of, persons watching or listening to the programmes without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred.
5.2. In applying paragraph 5.1(c) a series of programmes may be considered as a whole.
5.3 The Corporation shall:-
- draw up, and from time to time review, a code giving guidance as to the rule to be observed in connection with the application of paragraph 5.1(c) in relations to its services and programmes; and
- do all that it can to secure that the provisions of the code are observed in the provision of services and programmes and the Corporation may make different provision in the code for different cases or circumstances.
5.4 The rules specified in the code referred to in subclause 5.3 shall, in particular, take account of the following matters:-
- that due impartiality should be preserved on the part of the Corporation as respects major matters falling within paragraph 5.1(c) as well as matters falling within that provision taken as a whole; and
- the need to determine what constitutes a series of programmes for the purposes of subclause 5.2.
5.5 The rules so specified shall, in addition, indicate to such extent as the Corporation considers appropriate:-
The “Agreement” also prescribes what should happen in conditions of wars and states of emergency. It says:
“8.1 The Corporation shall, whenever so requested by any Minister of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and at the Corporation’s own expense, broadcast or transmit from all or any of the stations any announcement (with a visual image of any picture or object mentioned in the announcement if it is a television transmission) which such Minister may request the Corporation to broadcast or transmit; and shall also, whenever so requested by any such Minister in whose opinion an emergency has arisen or continues, at the like expense broadcast or transmit as aforesaid any other matter which such Minister may request the Corporation to broadcast or transmit, provided that the Corporation when sending such an announcement or other matter may at its discretion announce or refrain from announcing that it is sent at the request of the named Minister.
8.2 The Secretary of State may from time to time by notice in writing require the Corporation to refrain at any specified time or at all times from broadcasting or transmitting any matter or matter of any class specified in such notice; and the Secretary of State may at any time or times vary or revoke any such notice. The Corporation may at its discretion announce or refrain from announcing that such a notice has been given or has been varied or revoked.
8.3 If and whenever in the opinion of the Secretary of State an emergency shall have arisen in which it is expedient in the public interest that Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom shall have control over the broadcasting or transmission of any matter whatsoever by means of the stations or any of them, it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to direct and cause the stations or any of them or any part thereof to be taken possession of in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty and to prevent the Corporation from using them, and also to cause the stations or any of them or any part thereof to be used for Her Majesty’s service, or to take such other steps as he may think fit to secure control over the stations or any of them, and in that event any person authorised by the Secretary of State may enter upon the stations or any of them and take possession thereof and use the same as aforesaid.
8.4 If and whenever the Secretary of State shall exercise the powers conferred on him by subclause 8.3 the Corporation shall be entitled to receive from the Secretary of State –
- compensation for any damage done to any property of the Corporation, being damage directly attributable to the exercise of any such powers; and
- such sums as are required to defray any expenses which, regard being had to the nature of the emergency, have been properly and necessarily incurred by the Corporation and for meeting which revenue is by reason of the exercise of such powers not otherwise available to the Corporation.
8.5. All existing arrangements between the Corporation and the relevant Government Departments relating to certain defence works and national emergencies (as such arrangements may be varied from time to time) shall continue in force during the continuance of this Deed.
8.6 No person acting on the Corporation's behalf or by its permission shall or shall be permitted or suffered by the Corporation to divulge to any person (other than a properly authorised official of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or a competent legal tribunal), or make any use whatever of, any matter coming to his knowledge as a result of unintended reception by means of the stations or any of them or any of the Corporation's apparatus for wireless telegraphy or telecommunication systems.”
The “Agreement” also lays down rule about the External Service of the BBC, and says:
“9.1 The Corporation shall broadcast or transmit programmes and deliver other services in the World Service to such audiences overseas and in such languages as are approved by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in accordance with the objectives, priorities and targets which may from time to time be agreed with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or with such Departments of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom as may from time to time be specified in writing by the Secretary of State.
9.2 The Corporation shall perform such other services by way of monitoring transmissions of sound and television programmes and other telecommunication signals, electronic and print media, news agencies and other material and by way of recording matter intended to be broadcast or transmitted as may from time to time be agreed as aforesaid with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or with the Departments so specified.
9.3 The Corporation shall consult and co-operate with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Departments so specified and shall obtain and accept from them such information regarding international developments and conditions in countries overseas, and the policies of Her Majesty's Government in its international relations, as will enable the Corporation to plan and prepare its programmes in the World Service in the national interest.
9.4 The Corporation shall ensure that the World Service shares the general commitment of the Corporation to maintaining high standards of editorial integrity and programme content and quality. The Corporation shall agree with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and publish general long-term objectives relating to the World Service's operations, including the provision of an accurate, unbiased and independent news service covering international and national developments, the presentation of a balanced British view of those developments, and an accurate and effective representation of British life, institutions and achievements.
9.5 The Corporation shall report in reasonable detail on the performance of the World Service in the Annual Report presented pursuant to Article 18 of the Royal Charter and elsewhere as appropriate and in particular shall publish an account in such manner as may from time to time be agreed with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of how far the World Service is achieving its agreed objectives, priorities and targets.”
It is not necessary for us to explain the great import for the British public broadcaster of the provision in the “Agreement” we have cited. We hope they help to put into context both the whole discussion in our own country about the relationship between government and the public broadcaster in a democratic society, and the draft document published by the SABC.
The prescriptions contained in the “Agreement” make it inevitable that there must be a system of ‘upward referral’. It is obvious that no journalist actually gathering news that must be broadcast immediately, can be expected to meet all the obligations contained in the “Agreement”, at all times. These journalists would necessarily require that an editor under less pressure should serve as their ‘backstop’.
To deal with this, the BBC has produced what it calls “Producers’ Guidelines”. These specify the rules for ‘upward referrals’. Among other things, they say:
“The Producers’ Guidelines apply to all the BBC’s broadcasting, programmes and services for both domestic and international audiences, whether they are television, radio or online, and whether made by a BBC department or by an independent company for the BBC. The Guidelines help programme makers navigate their way through difficult editorial issues so that distinctive and sometimes controversial programmes can be made which maintain the highest ethical and editorial standards. The consultation and referral system is designed to help BBC people make, and share, decisions about especially difficult editorial issues.
Any proposal to step outside these guidelines needs to be discussed with someone at a senior level and should be referred to Controller Editorial Policy…
Programme departments carry the main responsibility in the referral system, so programme makers should refer first to their manager or editor.
All producers, managers and editors should have a working knowledge of the Producers’ Guidelines, particularly where they affect their specific programme areas. Individual departments should be able to deal with, and take responsibility for, most queries in the first instance. The more important and contentious the issue, the higher up it should be referred. This may lead to the relevant Head of Department, or Commissioning Executive. The first point of referral is always the editor or Commissioning Executive. If Editorial Policy needs to be consulted the editor or executive should make the call.
Editorial Policy should always be consulted in the following cases:
All of the following must be referred to Controller Editorial Policy. All should be referred to Heads of Department or Commissioning Executives first:
If any of the above have a connection with Northern Ireland they must also be referred to Controller Northern Ireland or in the case of News programmes Head of News and Current Affairs Northern Ireland.
Both of the following must be referred to the Chief Political Advisor in Editorial Policy:
Other important issues listed below must also be referred:
The Controller of the relevant Nation (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) must be informed in advance in writing of:
Chief Adviser Editorial Policy (Multimedia and Commercial) must be consulted in advance about:
From all the foregoing one can see that there is nothing unique or sinister about the SABC proposal concerning ‘upward referral’, despite anything the liberals in our country may say. The precise advantage of the BBC directives is their transparency, which makes it unnecessary to speculate about “an invisible censor”.
They make it possible for everybody to know who is responsible for what, with regard to major editorial policy decisions, leading to ‘visibility’ rather than ‘invisibility’. Public knowledge about internal editorial management within the BBC, increases the possibility for the public accountability of the Corporation.
At the same time, such clear editorial management confirms the principle known to every media professional, which should also become known to the public at large, that within the newsroom, there is no such thing as collective, mass editorial decision making. This also means that governments cannot be editors.
In this context, we must also say that those who fear and oppose what is new, do so because they know and are comfortable with what is old and established. However much these might defend their positions by attaching a ‘liberal democratic’ label to them, the reality is that what they seek is to conserve what exists. This defines them as conservatives, connoting everything this means in our specific national context.
It is interesting to note that the BBC Board of Governors, which oversees the BBC, with responsibilities towards the Corporation, the government and the public, is appointed by the Queen on advice from ministers, and not parliament, as in our case.
The publication of the SABC draft editorial policies provides an opportunity for our country to engage in serious discussion about the role of the public broadcaster. Necessarily this will reflect our various ideological and political positions. It would be idle and dishonest to think that broadcasting in all its elements is ideologically and politically neutral.
In this context, we are vitally interested that the SABC should live up to its correct vision contained in the BBC “Agreement”, accepting that this represents ‘best international practice’. We recognise the fact that the BBC has accumulated enormous experience as a public broadcaster, whereas the experience of the SABC in this regard is very limited.
Accordingly, taking example from the stated policies of the BBC, the SABC should:
It should even seek to better the BBC in the pursuit of these objectives, setting new international benchmarks.
In a speech delivered on April 24, 2003, the current DG of the BBC, Greg Dyke, quoted John Simpson, BBC World Affairs Editor, as saying in an article published just before this year’s Iraq war:
“Governments have as much right as anyone else to put pressure on the BBC; it’s only a problem if the BBC caves in.”
Mr Dyke then says: “He is right, it is only a problem if the BBC caves in.”
For the British public broadcaster, ‘upward referral’ is a necessary part of the discharge of its responsibilities as such a broadcaster. We can see no reason why this should not be the case with our public broadcaster.
Like the British government, and anyone else in our society, including political parties, business and advertisers, trade unions, the commercial press, and others, our government has a right to put pressure on our public broadcaster.
As a country, we must outgrow the dishonest and self-serving habit of trying to suppress the legitimate right and important duty of the government to communicate its positions, by announcing the exercise of this right and duty as a threat to press freedom.
Much of the media in our country, including the public broadcaster, constantly try to insulate themselves from the national transformation project by arguing that calls for such transformation constitute a threat to the constitutional and democratic principle and practice of the freedom of the press. After nine years of liberation, we know enough to know what is legitimate, and what is false and self-serving.
For the public broadcaster to maintain its character and discharge its obligations, it needs clear policies and guidelines that govern its conduct, enabling it successfully to resist the pressures referred to by Simpson. These policies and guidelines must necessarily include editorial policy.
We find it strange that some people find something sinister in the attempt of the SABC to achieve clarity and transparency with regard to its policies and procedures. We find it stranger that an organisation like the SACP, which knows of the peculiar, but historically determined influence, of ‘liberal’ ideology in our country and media, should take such a view. We know why conservative “liberals” are fighting to maintain the status quo. Its not clear why other are.