80
« on: February 20, 2007, 03:26:39 PM »
Interview with Raashied Ghalant, researcher: Gender Advocacy Project, Cape Town.
Uhuru: Is there media freedom in South Africa and what about the rest of Africa?
Raashied: Media freedom in South Africa definitely exists on paper.
Media
freedom is judged in terms of constitutional guarantees for a free press. In fact a free press is considered media freedom. In that sense, South Africa has media freedom. Considering that model, you can say that there is media freedom in other countries like Mozambique, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Tanzania, Mauritius, Ghana, Nigeria, and Senegal among others. One can say they have healthy legislative models. Naturally on the ground, the extent of actual media freedom differs vastly in these different African countries.
South African media is very complex and very unique in the continent in terms of media, South Africa has become an imperialist nation in Africa where many South African media titles are exported to many African
countries: South African magazines, South African television, South African Soap Operas, South African telecommunication, and many more. In other words, a number of South African Soap Operas are shown in many African
countries:
Isidingo, in Namibia, 7 de Laan is very big, Egoli. We don't see Nigerian Soap Operas in South Africa. We don't see Egyptian films on South African TVs and Cinemas. We don't see Senegalese and Malian music programmes and Tanzanian talk shows. We don't see the children programmes from Egypt or Libya. So, there is an element of media freedom in Africa but media freedom in general is constrained by modes of operation of capitalism where there is a commerce-driven and an unequal distribution of communication.
When one says that South Africa has a good legislative model and a good socio-political environment for media freedom, the accusation that can be leveled at South African media is that not enough is being done in [S.A.] to Africanize the media. There also lies the dilemma of freedom of expression and media freedom. Yes, on paper, there is media freedom in South Africa, but in reality, this media freedom is constrained overwhelmingly by business. This is because the tool for media freedom is constrained by ownership and a monopoly of ideology. In other words, there is a monopoly of ideology in the media as the overwhelming discourse is capitalism, commerce, and non-African entertainment.
Uhuru: What do mean by Africanising the South African media?
Raashied: There is hardly any reciprocal exchange of African media in South Africa. Many South Africa newspapers are not using news items from African news agencies. Africanising the media involves not just writing about Africa, but having Africans write about Africa. As opposed to our independent newspapers sending their correspondents to Darfur, why not tap into the Sudanese media? What is the rest of Africa talking about the 2010 world cup? Why are we not getting African Soap Operas? Why are we not getting the music variety programmes that are being produced in other African countries? Why are we not seeing African talk-shows and African movies? These are all part of integrating Africa. A lot of people are talking about integrating Africa; businessmen and politicians are talking about African integration. But, there is also an integration that must happen at the level of the media. At the moment, South Africa is showing signs of distinct imperialism.
Uhuru: By saying that South Africa is showing signs of distinct imperialism, are you saying that South Africa is trying to become a bully in the continent?
Raashied: Look at it this way; South Africa is a victim of American imperialism. In other words, we are showing American talk shows, Soap Operas, but in America, there are no South African talk shows, Soap Operas and other variety shows. That is distinct imperialism and when it comes to South Africa, which is what we are showing to the rest of Africa because in terms of the media, other African countries are simply South Africa's satellite states. We don't see programmes from those African countries.
So,
when it comes to the media, there are signs of imperialism.
Uhuru: South Africa does not have government-owned newspapers. Yet, many African countries have state-owned newspapers. What dilemma does this have for African journalists, political parties and state employees?
Raashied: South Africa does not have a state-owned newspaper.
Interestingly,
South Africa like other African countries has a state-owned broadcasting station. In many instances that has posed a distinct advantage to private media in South Africa. The state-newspapers get subsidized by the state and invariably become the mouthpiece of the political party in power. The state newspaper can muscle out private newspapers by taking advertising at much cheaper rates and by printing at lower costs if not at a loss so that when people get them, they are satisfied to have that one newspaper and cannot afford private newspapers.
In South Africa, we have private-owned newspapers that are partisan but claim to be non-partisan, independent and objective. A political party-funded newspaper is also a very distinct feature of media in Africa - there is always a political or party funded newspaper. Here in [SA], it's confined to the Internet and the web. For South Africa, it is a pity that there aren't openly partisan newspapers that can be platforms for social activism in a political fashion because there is a need for political activism around many different issues.
Uhuru: Do you think that state-owned newspapers can positively advance the transformational processes going on in South Africa today?
Raashied: Remember there is state media [in SA]. There are a lot of publications being published by the state-government newsletters, glossy government inserts in newspapers, which are advertorials for government services and policies. There is the GCIS and that is a very important area for Africanisation in the way I was speaking about African integration.
The
agency can a**ume the role of negotiating for the African programmes that can be fed into our local stations.
Uhuru: What role can the media play in the promotion of African integration?
Raashied: What do we mean by African integration? Businessmen are speaking of African integration. Politicians are speaking of African integration.
For
me, African integration should happen at the social level where we can communally sit down and be Africans. It is about working towards a borderless Africa where we are free in Africa, which is a very strong ideological vision.
It is not just being able to walk through Africa but knowing that all of Africa can do the same. There are aspects of land, of dignity, of resources, of wealth that need to be integrated in Africa. It is at that deep ideological level that I see African integration. The media in South Africa can play a role by speaking Africa in South Africa. By not integrating African content in the media, South Africa is in danger of becoming a distinct imperialist in Africa when it comes to the media and that feeds into xenophobia in the media. The location from which the media is observing Africa (when I say observing Africa, I mean reporting about Africa, the choice of what is reported about, the type of commentary that is given on Africa, the type of commentators that are invited to comment on Africa, the movies that are shown about Africa, the general entertainment content about Africa in African media) that is still very euro-centric.
Uhuru: What role can the African Union play in establishing media freedom in Africa?
Raashied: I think this is well stated already because media freedom organizations are quite powerful in Africa. Not powerful in their persuasive abilities, but in being vocal and in existence. Inevitably, the media will give voice to the media freedom organizations. So, in terms of the role the AU can and should play, they state it very often. Basically, the African Union is called upon to promote good legislative practice. The AU is called upon to address issues of media freedom violations, to confront, criticize, and condemn countries where media freedom violations occur.
Uhuru: Looking at the 2010 World Cup that will be taking place in South Africa. Here in South Africa, major discourse is around crime, violence, infrastructural readiness, and business opportunities. How "africanized"
is
this discourse?
Raashied: Firstly, the 2010 World Cup is a fact. It is going to happen.
A
World Cup is a major event. Though it is a multi-million Dollar business event, it is also a very deep cultural event. It is also a very political event that we must take cognizance of. It is a political event in the sense of its potential to facilitate a very radical integration of Africa that is needed. In terms of the South African media discourse, the World Cup is not africanised.
The dominant discourse is around crime and violence: There is so much crime in this country and who will want to come to the World Cup? The next discourse is about infrastructure: Is South Africa ready in terms of transport facilities, stadium, and well-equipped airports? The other discourse is around business: Our hotels, our hospitality industry, and our garment industry, what T-Shirts can be made? Who will be making them?
That
is the discourse. How africanised is it? It is very unafrican. What about African business? What African business and/or trader will be getting a cut from it?
Being an African World Cup means that it will be the first time that many Africans will get to see the spectacle that is the World Cup and be involved in it. Not just to come and sit at the stadium and see your match. The spectacle involves the flow of the people, the integration and interaction of the people. To what extent will the African people be allowed to do that?
One of the things that can be done will be to relax visa access for Africans.
In other words, Africans should not pay for the South African visa to come and see the world Cup while non-Africans should pay more for visa and in that way subsidize for Africans that will be coming. Africans should be able to drive down from Angola, Namibia, Lesotho, Swaziland, Egypt, Somalia, Ghana, Senegal, Tunisia, Madagascar, in fact from everywhere on the continent. We can drive down into South Africa to come and see the World Cup. To what extent is this being encouraged? Is this being made provision for and how is this being provided for? What campsites are we making available? What affordable accommodations are being provided for Africans?
What arrangements are being made to encourage people to drive down to come and see the World Cup? We can have a convoy coming from Cairo by bus. It will be the first time ever that something like that could be done. I don't know what is the discourse in the rest of Africa regarding the 2010. I will be surprised if the African media is not talking about the World Cup.
Uhuru: The South African media has been accused of encouraging Xenophobia against the African immigrant communities. What do you think should be done?
Raashied: In 2006, the Media Monitoring Project released their study, which did find that the South African media is Xenophobic. This is a very tricky question and here is where the distinction comes out. Technically, xenophobia is the hatred of a non-indigene. The xenophobia of the South African media is not directed at non-Africans. It is a xenophobia that is particularly directed at African people and the root of it is not very simple. It is easy to say that the media is white-owned and they are racists. It is definitely not as simple as that because the finding has it that it is the media that is directed at black audiences that is the most xenophobic - the tabloids. The media that are largely directed at white audiences are less overtly xenophobic. What can be done will involve getting to the roots of the cause - why are the media practitioners themselves xenophobic?
At that level, there should be very crucial political education around Africa in the newsrooms. Political education needs to be happening at journalism training level about Africa. Naturally, there should be content integration. There is also a local gra**roots xenophobia that feeds into the media that needs to be addressed.