GILL MOODIE: I know you’re very passionate about transformation of the print industry. Why so passionate? 

 

LUMKO MTIMDE: The reason, I think, is derived from both the Constitution and the MDDA Act of 2002 wherein Section 16 of the Constitution talks to the freedom of the press and other media, and talks to freedom to receive and impart information and ideas. And arriving from the Section, the legislature enacted the MDDA Act whose mandate is broadly to encourage participation, ownership, control and access to and of media by historically disadvantaged communities as well as historically diminished indigenous languages and cultural codes... The MDDA Act promotes media growth and development and media diversity – so that’s our mandate in a nutshell. So in the context of that mandate, when you look into, for example, the research we conducted into on the trends of media (ownership) in South Africa (published in July 2009), you then can see not much has changed in terms of print media. In broadcast media, a lot has changed compared to 1994 right through the value chain from ownership and control and the number of players in the market to independent producers of content. But when you come to print media, there certainly remains challenges...  In the main there are four dominant media owners, of which you have Independent Newspapers, which is foreign-owned. You have Caxton, which is 100% white owned and you have Media24, which is 15.5% owned by historically disadvantaged communities. And you have Avusa, which by last year, was 25% owned (by historically disadvantaged people) but now with the UHC deal, there might be a little bit of improvement. In a nutshell, we do not have what the MDDA Act requires: that  we have diversity of media and ensure that historically disadvantaged communities own and control media...

 

MOODIE: But what difference will change in ownership make when newspaper editors protect their editorial independence from their owners’ interference?   

 

MTIMDE: I don’t think it’s factual to say there is no link between ownership and control. The fact of the matter is that when you set up a company, you have a clear vision and mission and you constitute a team and it is at that point – of constituting a team – that owners participate. Once they constitute the team, they allow it to operate – it’s called good corporate governance and in media it goes further to be called good corporate governance and editorial independence. There is no way that a (newspaper) owner would appoint someone who does not subscribe to the vision and mission of that particular company. That’s the context of the link and I think this is a universally accepted principle.  

 

MOODIE: But on the ownership issue of the four big media houses, Tony O’ Reilly’s Irish company sought the ANC’s blessing when he bought the Argus  group of newspapers in the early 1990s (which became Independent Newspapers)? It is widely believed he contributed handsomely to the ANC’s coffers. 

 

MTIMDE: Gill, you need to focus on the issue here, which is non-diversity... (The law) says we must have diverse media so that there are diverse views and opinions to ensure that our democracy does not suffer from (being dominated by) one voice – or four voices  –  ... that may actually be representative of a minority of opinion in South Africa. The issue is that diversity of the media is an imperative that our democracy requires to shine.

 

MOODIE: The MMDA got R17.3-million from government this year (and also 0.2% of turnover from the broadcasting industry and R1.2-million each a year from the four print media owners)? If the government is serious about developing and diversifying media, shouldn’t they give you guys more money?  

 

MTIMDE: I agree and there is broad concensus in South Africa on this. Every time we go to Parliament every party in Parliament says we need to adequately resource the MDDA in order for it achieve its mandate... NGOs have done a lot of research into this (and agree).  But the point is that we need together to have that political will. Once we do not have the political will and hear the kind of resistance that you are basing your questions on, it doesn’t help... We shouldn’t be spending time on (saying or finger pointing) ‘you accepted foreigners’. That is not the issue. The issue is diversity of media.  

 

MOODIE: I’ve worked in community papers and I’ve seen many fold because producing newspapers is really difficult. They’re difficult to report and write, difficult to get advertising for and very difficult to distribute. I wonder if it wouldn’t be better for the MDDA to concentrate more on community radio, which, after all, goes out in vernacular language?  

 

MTIMDE: I don’t think it’s an ‘either, or’. Every citizen should have the right to choose what kind of media he or she wants to consume or want to participate in... and also choose which language you want to access this in.

 

MOODIE: But you’ve got to look at the practicalities. Surely more of an emphasis on community radio would make sense – at least in the beginning stages? Radio is much cheaper and easier to set up. 

 

MTIMDE: I think the perception that radio is so easy to set up is wrong...

 

MOODIE: I didn’t say ‘easy’. I said ‘easier’. Newspapers are very hard. 

 

MTIMDE: Yes, but we have to deal with the challenges, with what makes it difficult for communities to own and control their newspapers and magazines or for small commercial media to be successful in that regard.

 

MOODIE: I’m sorry to interrupt but newspapers are hard for anyone – whether you’re a JSE-listed company or very small. The golden age of newspapers is gone. Just physically distributing newspapers is very difficult and it’s expensive. Surely the MDDA can see this? 

 

MTIMDE: We have conducted research. We’re not thumb sucking. The research has looked at the challenges for these small businesses and in the main the challenges are not out of the blue; they are embedded in the market structure. If you look at who owns printing presses and distribution facilities, you come back to the same challenge in terms of who  owns the publishing businesses...  

 

MOODIE: OK, let’s look at the issue of printing presses. How can the MDDA help small community papers overcome that printing-press issue? 

 

MTIMDE: Some of the recommendations suggest, among other things, that perhaps we need to support the setting up of a printing press by possibly media co-ops in the different provinces. We are investigating whether that kind of recommendation would make business sense and provide a solution.

 

MOODIE: Are you aware of the citizen journalism project funded by the Knight foundation that Rhodes University is doing through Grocott’s Mail (the community newspaper of Grahamstown that is owned by Rhodes)? They have a newsroom set up specifically for ‘citizen journalists’ from the townships and they train them to write. These citizen journalists also have their own radio show. Instead of setting up new community papers, isn’t this maybe a route way to explore: hooking up with existing titles to do something like this?  

 

MTIMDE: Look, we are aware of this initiative and we have supported it. There is no exclusion... If such a model is the best model then we should support it. We should welcome any new player to the market. We should welcome The New Age, for instance. Having said that, though, the key (question) is to what extent are we realising diversity. For example, the solution of maybe a conglomerate buying small papers and co-sharing  50-50 may not necessarily be the answer to diversity. It may help, yes, but it might not be the only solution.

 

MOODIE: You’ve been very vocal in your support of the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal. How would such a tribunal, which could be open to abuse by the powers that be, contribute to the MDDA’s mandate of developing and diversifying media? It could possibly be used to squash voices that are critical of the government. Diversity is about having voices across the spectrum. Surely you don’t replace one voice with another?    

 

MTIMDE: Let me answer that question in my personal capacity. What South Africa is called to discuss is the investigation of the desirability of establishing a Media Appeals Tribunal. Which is intended to be a mechanism of accountability, strengthening the existing self-regulation and complementing it as a way of discouraging inaccurate and unfair reporting which compromises the integrity of our media... I, as an individual, have said: ‘What’s wrong with investigating this possibility’. Reviews (such as this) have happened everywhere else in the world... I don’t see such a call as threatening media freedom nor, as you say, as closing down diversity. I think that equation is unfounded.   

 

MOODIE: What’s your view of the Protection of Information Bill? 

 

MTIMDE: Again, I can only answer that as an individual because the MDDA has not discussed it because, firstly, it is not a media Bill. My personal understanding starts from there. It is not a media Bill and we shouldn’t mislead the world by saying that it is. My understanding of that Bill is that it is a protection of state information and that this exists everywhere in the world... I move from the premise that there is an existing Act and that Act needs to be aligned to the new constitutional dispensation. The Bill, therefore, that is being discussed in Parliament is being aligned to the Constitution...I, again, do not believe that by putting forward such a discussion in the public domain, that you are threatening media freedom. There are enough checks and balances in our constitutional dispensation to ensure that everything we do is within the constitutional framework... there is no way that any unconstitutional law will pass these tests.

 

MOODIE: So there’s really no need for us to worry about the Bill then. Is that what you’re saying? 

 

MTIMDE: No, what I’m saying is when that Bill is presented for public discussion, we have to engage in that discussion. 

 

MOODIE: OK, so what would your view be then in terms of the consequences of Bill, should it go through in its present form? 

 

MTIMDE: Obviously, it won’t go through in its present form the way I see it because the intention of the public participatory process is to involve public ideas in shaping a law. Therefore, the input that has been made by different people is being considered (by the portfolio committee hearing) and, therefore, the final product will be one that is informed by this public participatory process.  

 

MOODIE: Taking a step back, don’t you think what’s happening here is that this is a debate over who has the right to speak for whom. It seems that there is a battle – though I don’t really know if it is a battle – where on the one hand you have the (newspaper) editors saying: ‘We have the right to speak for our readers’. On the other hand, you have the hard liners if the SACP saying: ‘We have the right to speak for the populace. You newspapers don’t accurately reflect the lives of all South Africans’. 

 

MTIMDE: No, I don’t understand the context of you questions and the labels and your examples. That’s your opinion. You’re expressing an ideological standpoint?

 

MOODIE: Ideological? How is it ideological? 

 

MTIMDE: You have said ‘extremists’ in the Communist Party, et cetera.

 

MOODIE: I said ‘hard liners’. 

 

MTIMDE: All I’m saying is that I’m not going to engage in the particular discourse that you are presenting. For me, there is no one in our dispensation

who has the right to say they are speaking on the behalf of someone else. I don’t think editors have the right to say they are speaking on behalf of their readers.

 

MOODIE: But if you buy a newspaper, you’re sort of subscribing to what that newspaper stands for.  

 

MTIMDE: I don’t think that’s true. Buying a newspaper and reading it doesn’t mean that I subscribe to the (newspaper’s) editorial policy.

 

MOODIE: You wouldn’t stop buying it, if you didn’t agree with it? 

 

MTIMDE: I don’t think it’s as simple as that. You might buy it because you might want to read the other perspective... I read everything from left to right. It doesn’t mean I subscribe to these views.

 

MOODIE: But you and I are not ordinary media consumers because we’re part of the media so we read very widely. 

 

MTIMDE: Yes, but if what you’re saying was correct then does it mean that – let’s use an obvious example – pre-1994 all the people who bought and read those newspaper were agreeing with the content of those newspapers. That’s an absurdity.

 

MOODIE: Some people in media circles refer to you as a hard liner? Do you see yourself as such. I’d like to give the opportunity to comment on that. 

 

MTIMDE: I think that’s unfortunate that some people in the media tend to become defensive and jump to labelling and hysteria. I see myself as participating in a discourse that is intended to help transform our media landscape and ensure that each and every person and citizen in South Africa enjoys the objectives and benefits of our Constitution and the MDDA Act...

 

MOODIE: There’s something I’d like to check. You were one of the authors of the 1997 Polokwane ANC discussion document on media transformation, weren’t you, and the author of the resulting media-transformation section in the report from this year’s ANC National General Council in Durban?

 

MTIMDE: I’m not sure of the objective of that question. It is an ANC document. Let’s leave it at that. I don’t think it’s important to know who authored the documents. Once it becomes an ANC document, it is an ANC document. There is no weight on who is the author.

 

MOODIE: OK, I’m sorry to ask this but I’d like to give you the opportunity to put your view forward. Some say you’re raising your profile in the SACP and ANC by being very vocal on the Media Appeals Tribunal? How do you respond to this?

 

MTIMDE: I have always been vocal on these matters. When I was young in Sanco (South African National Civic Organisation) and Sansco (South African National Students’' Congress), I was always vocal on these issues. And there was no profile raising there.  It was about fighting for freedom. I am the founder of the first community radio station in South Africa and a founder of National Community Radio Forum and became its first CEO... I was the founder of the National Community Media Forum... and I was a councillor of Icasa... I have always been talking the same language. I don’t know where this view would come from except that people may want to label and suppress noble discussion. I don’t think that’s good for our democracy.