Multichoice has no right to act like a bully with ANN7
THIS week was full of “miracles”. We learnt on Tuesday about a skewed Viceroy report on Capitec. Luckily, the bank’s management had the gumption to defend it from the report’s findings. We then watched Multichoice announce the termination of the contract with ANN7.
In doing so, Multichoice and Viceroy exposed themselves and their dirty dealings.
It is now clear that those who benefited from the apartheid regime and are still in control of the economy are afraid to see people previously excluded from the mainstream now being brought into the fold.
We are tired of consuming content from four white multinational companies: Naspers, Tiso Blackstar, Caxton and Primedia.
Thankfully, Dr Iqbal Survé bought Independent Media.
Not only have we seen a change in ownership, but in content as well.
The four media groups owned by white capitalists want to control the media space in the country.
The community newspapers are suffering due to Caxton’s presence in our community – they do not encourage ownership diversity, but want to sustain the skewed ownership which does not reflect our society.
Multichoice has been elevated as the “god” of satellite space, where it decides the fate of subscribers – just as God decides the fate of the dead. The PAC is not just worried about the workers, but also the thousands of viewers of ANN7.
Should consumers not be given an opportunity to choose what they want?
They don’t need Multichoice to decide for them.
The actions of Multichoice cannot go unnoticed and unchallenged with regard to the termination of their contact with ANN7.
We have witnessed the unfair treatment of journalists associated with ANN7 by either hooligan politicians or fellow journalists from “progressive” media houses.
Multichoice has no right to bully ANN7 or any other media house for that matter.
We are fuming; we are flabbergasted by this behaviour of Multichoice.
According to Multichoice, it was the public perception around ANN7 which had led to their selfish decision of terminating the contract.
This bully claims to have conducted due diligence, where they have found absolutely nothing against the satellite news channel ANN7, which appears to be a threat to its competitors.
It is clear that Multichoice is owned by the same people (Naspers) who are fighting with ANN7 for media space.
These owners of Multichoice are also encountering elevated pressure from invisible faces.
What could possibly be Multichoice’s reason for terminating their contract with ANN7?
We have always contended and called for diversity of content through reasonable ownership of the media, unlike the current ownership trend which is skewed by the control of four multinational conglomerates.
We have to have differing views, which ANN7 has been trying to present.
As things stand, we have a public broadcaster that has been converted to a state broadcaster, largely existing in the totalitarian state and on the other hand, we have another channel, ENCA, which has proudly taken an anti-government stance and we strongly believe that cannot constitute a diversity of media.
Why has action only been taken against ANN7? We have not heard about any contractual disputes with ENCA or SABC in public.
Our question is: who are the decision-makers at Multichoice?
The process would have been fair if there was an inclusive review of all channels signed up to Multichoice, including ENCA and all the SABC channels.
We then ask ourselves how did Multichoice obtain an exclusive right to the satellite space? Why can Multichoice decide on who should exist and who doesn’t?
The PAC calls on Icasa to intervene in this issue as a referee and regulator in the communication sector. It can’t be right for Multichoice to use its muscle to bully a station when it airs something it does not agree with.
Mogathle is PAC spokesperson