Despite ANN7, let alternatives flourish
The recent decision by MultiChoice to abruptly take ANN7, one of its content suppliers, off air later in 2018 has been a subject of much discussion because of its timing as well as the implausible reasons offered for the decision. Quite rightly, there has been concern at the impending loss of jobs at the channel, which is now owned by Mzwanele Manyi.
The demise of the channel, founded by the controversial Gupta family, has come at the same time as one of its chief sponsors, President Jacob Zuma, finds himself fighting for his political life. In all likelihood, he won’t be head of state by the end of this week.
The controversy over the termination of ANN7’s contract has exposed some of the fundamental contradictions in our discourse around freedom of expression.
The group, including The New Age newspaper, came to the market promising to be the much-awaited alternative black-owned voice market disrupter with a simple agenda — being pro-SA and telling inconvenient truths.
The channel, boasting stateof-the-art broadcast technology at its Midrand offices, has served as a training ground for many young South Africans. Now the MultiChoice announcement, coming after an investigation prompted by the Gupta e-mail leaks, is likely to trigger a flight of talent, making ANN7 a takeover target.
Prior to the existential threat it now faces, it did become an alternative of sorts. But the problem with this strategy was that it was a narrow alternative to the mainstream media — especially the print media – not for South Africans. An example of its inconvenient truth included running an expose of the alleged mismanagement of the so-called integrated financial management system at the Treasury, when the mainstream media was dominated by headlines about the epic fallout between Zuma and former finance minister Pravin Gordhan. Or airing helpful interviews with the public protector after her embarrassing mishandling of the Absa lifeboat case.
Its contribution in offering a training ground for young black journalists was undermined by giving a platform to a new breed of mostly controversial analysts and commentators. Two prominent examples here are Carl Niehaus, the fraudster and spokesman of the MK Military Veterans Association (MKMVA), and Andile Mngxitama, leader of the loony fringe outfit Black First, Land First (BLF), which has attacked journalists at their homes.
Unsurprisingly, the MKMVA and BLF are now leading the chorus of protests including calls for boycotts, against MultiChoice over its decision to stop carrying the channel.
This association with dodgy has-beens and never-weres wasn’t the only blunder. The channel also found itself a victim of fake news and was caught up in the factional battles of the governing party.
But its failure to connect and to create a measurable, distinct audience and its association with the Guptas have ensured that the channel is starved of advertising, which is a key source of revenue alongside the payments by MultiChoice. Few media owners have pockets deep enough to sustain a 24hour channel.
Relying on public sector revenue, which provided a lifeline for The New Age through lucrative sponsorship deals until a year ago, failed to make up for a critical gap in strategy: the absence of a credible revenue model. Hope is an important ingredient of any strategy but it alone doesn’t constitute one. Unfortunately, this situation persists.
If the association risk arising from the channel’s Gupta links and proximity to Zuma was slow poison, then the combination of Gupta e-mail leaks, including the disclosure of the toxic involvement of Bell Pottinger in fanning racial tension in SA, and the MultiChoice decision has dealt a deadly blow to the station.
Still, the fact that the owners — past and present — of ANN7 botched the revenue model doesn’t mean there’s no space for an alternative television channel. There is. And SA will be richer with more voices. It is disingenuous for its detractors to dance on the grave of ANN7 while claiming to be in favour of a diversity of views. Support for plurality of views means we have to advocate for space for those with different views from ours, regardless of how outrageous these may seem, provided they play within the rules-based system of news gathering and dissemination.
In the US, Fox, a supporter of Trumpism, coexists with the likes of CNN and public broadcasters. Similarly, in the UK papers openly side with various political parties, especially on key public issues, without alienating their readers. In fact, this transparency is appreciated, not condemned.
As our democracy matures, progressive politics means we’d have to live with the contradictions of allowing, and even defending, views that differ from our closely held ones, provided these are propagated within the rules of the game.
RELYING ON PUBLIC SECTOR REVENUE FAILED TO MAKE UP FOR A CRITICAL GAP IN STRATEGY: THE ABSENCE OF A CREDIBLE REVENUE MODEL