The Media Policy & Democracy Project is divided into three main focus areas as follows:
1. Internet freedom, privacy online, and communications surveillance
A number of international protocols and foreign lead initiatives have promoted the view that freedom of expression rights ought to apply equally online as they do offline. Other countries, most notably Sweden, have maintained that if an individual is entitled to experience freedom of expression generally, then this right should also apply to their actions in the online environment. A landmark moment within this debate came in 2012, when the United Nations Human Rights Council for the first time adopted a resolution on human rights and the Internet. South Africa was a signatory to this resolution.
Despite this, a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives have been instituted by South African state authorities which would effectively result in Internet censorship, as described above. The Centre will aim to assess all barriers to freedom of expression online in South Africa, which includes but is not exclusive to legislative and regulatory barriers. The Centre will also assess barriers imposed by telecommunications companies (such as attempts to regulate over the top services), and the economic barrier to ordinary Internet users of the cost of data, which often negatively impacts the user’s lived experience of the Internet as a platform for free self-expression.
Another potential barrier to using the Internet is the threat posed by communications surveillance. The revelations by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden, that the NSA was conducting mass surveillance of United States (US) citizens, as well as political leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have created a massive international controversy. Other countries have also been exposed as conducting mass surveillance too. This aspect of the project explores the implications of communications surveillance for internet freedom, and communications usage generally, in South Africa.
South Africa is not a terrorist target, yet growing social unrest and increasing protests means that the temptation is there for less principled members of the security apparatus to abuse the state’s surveillance capabilities to advantage the ruling group in the ruling party and disadvantage their perceived detractors. This possibility is not farfetched. In 2005, the state’s mass surveillance capacity was misused to spy on perceived opponents of the-then contender for the Presidency, Jacob Zuma. In 2010, Sunday Times journalists Mzilikazi wa Afrika had his communications intercepted to track his journalistic activities. The Inspector-general of Intelligence declared this interception lawful, although the police had given very vague and insubstantial grounds for the direction. Then later in 2010, it emerged that he and his colleague Stephan Hofstatter had had their communications surveilled, but this time unlawfully, they allege. The state has brought a criminal case against the police officers involved, and the case was due to be heard in court at the time of writing.
Several politicians and activists have alleged that their communications are being surveilled, although it is difficult to say whether this is the case. The Mail and Guardian has quoted sources inside the police and State Security Agency alleging that security personnel often don’t even bother obtaining directions to intercept communications. In 2013, it emerged during a trial that the Crime Intelligence Division of the South African Police Service (SAPS) had placed members of the Boeremag under surveillance while in prison, which included intercepting communications between the accused and their lawyers, in violation of attorney-client privilege. While it is extremely difficult to establish the extent of the problem, these incidents makes the case for reforms to ensure that the state’s surveillance capacity is not abused again.
South Africa has a law that governs the surveillance of domestic communications on both criminal justice and national security matters, the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communications Related Information Act (RICA). In spite of the fact that its drafters attempted to strike the correct balance between the interests of justice and national security on the one hand, and civil liberties on the other, it ignores many of the most basic protections set out in the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, or the ‘Necessary and Proportionate’ principles. An added problem is that foreign signals intelligence is unregulated by RICA, which is probably unconstitutional. The country’s bulk monitoring capacity resides in the interception centre that undertakes foreign signals intelligence gathering; in other words, the state surveillance agency that has the greatest potential for mass surveillance is the one that is least regulated by law. The level of secrecy in relation to communications surveillance is unacceptably high.
The Department of State Security intends to launch a review of intelligence policy, to assess the strengths and weaknesses of all national security-related policies. The Department of Communications has also launched a review of ICT policy and legislation. The Centre will use these reviews to present researched alternatives to the existing communications surveillance regimes that enhance respect for basic rights and freedoms, and thereby provide South African civil society organisations with the research capacity to advocate for changes, should they be warranted. It will build on research the MPDP has already undertaken on communications surveillance in South Africa, funded by the Open Society Foundation for South Africa, and will seek to promote journalism on the surveillance capacities of the state, the uses to which they are being put, and their impacts on democratic deliberation, including in the media.
2. Media diversity and transformation
In the early 2000's Parliament established the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) in partnership with the media industry and the community media sector to support the remainder of the grassroots press. However, since the establishment of the MDDA, in its practices in government, the ANC has adopted a hands-off approach towards the industry, preferring to allow market forces to determine the fate of the media, with anti-competitive practices being checked by the competition authorities. Evidence has emerged that this approach, which amounts to an adaptation to neoliberalism, but with a public service top-up through the targeted subsidies of the MDDA, is inadequate to the task of realising diversity.
The Centre will review the adequacy of existing measures to promote diversity, considers international models for realising substantive media diversity, and suggest policy options to feed into Parliament's discussions on media transformation.
The Centre aims to implement a media diversity measurement model in order to more accurately assess the actual level of diversity of content within the South African media landscape, and amongst different audience sectors (whom has access to what). Barriers to more meaningful media access experienced by economically disadvantaged audience segments will be identified and analysed for the purpose of recommending measures to reduce such barriers.
In the anticipated parliamentary hearings around the Media Appeals Tribunal will be critical for all stakeholders and participants. It is envisaged that this research would be valuable for all stakeholders in developing richer understandings relevant to issues of any regulation to be debated with regard to addressing the pressing question of media diversity and transformation.
Equally important to an assessment of media content diversity is the manner in which the media, particularly the mainstream and corporate media, behaves when reporting. In South Africa, privatised and corporate media are mostly consumed by a minority middle-class audience which has adequate expendable income to pay for access to expensive subscription television services, pricey investigative newspapers and sufficient Internet data to make the user’s experience of the online world a meaningful one. Because the private and corporate media are available only to a specific audience, it is the interests of this very particular audience which are predominantly served by the majority of media content. A resulting dearth of the representation of a diversity of voices, opinions and world views, particularly those relevant to grassroots communities, symptomatically becomes apparent within the media. The mainstream news media have been repeatedly accused of misrepresenting and/or ignoring the conflicts and struggles taking place throughout the country within grassroots and poor communities.
3. Communications policy and the public interest
There are a number of communications policy review processes which are due to begin soon, or are currently taking place in South Africa. The MPDP participated in some of these (such as the yet to be concluded SABC Editorial Policy Review Process and the ongoing ICT policy review process). In order to equip the project to continue in its efforts to contribute to communication policy in the public interest, the next phase of research and participation in the policy review negotiation processes will include:
The twin issues of a changing funding environment and the convergence of communications mediums and sectors have important implications for a public interest approach to the South African Broadcasting Media Landscape. The key issue here is that, converging communications regimes all too often neglect the public interest, in spite of the fact that convergence is often trumpeted as a means of bridging the digital divide and promoting consumer choice. Added to this, how the media is funded, to what extend and by who, has serious implications for its functioning in the public interest. It is no secret for example that PSBs need to be substantially funded if they are to compete in a crowded broadcasting arena and, more importantly, that they must be funded predictably in order to ensure that funding cannot be used to control a PSB. This section of the research project therefore aims to examine how media policy can best be managed with regard to maintaining the public interest as a foremost priority and concern. The project will produce a list of recommendations and suggestions for current and future communications policy review processes geared towards the prioritisation of the public interest in processes of policy review. The suggestions and recommendations will be formulated such that it is adaptable also to the changing (converging) media landscape.
- Internet freedom, privacy online, and communications surveillance
- Media transformation and diversity
- Communications policy in the public interest
1. Internet freedom, privacy online, and communications surveillance
A number of international protocols and foreign lead initiatives have promoted the view that freedom of expression rights ought to apply equally online as they do offline. Other countries, most notably Sweden, have maintained that if an individual is entitled to experience freedom of expression generally, then this right should also apply to their actions in the online environment. A landmark moment within this debate came in 2012, when the United Nations Human Rights Council for the first time adopted a resolution on human rights and the Internet. South Africa was a signatory to this resolution.
Despite this, a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives have been instituted by South African state authorities which would effectively result in Internet censorship, as described above. The Centre will aim to assess all barriers to freedom of expression online in South Africa, which includes but is not exclusive to legislative and regulatory barriers. The Centre will also assess barriers imposed by telecommunications companies (such as attempts to regulate over the top services), and the economic barrier to ordinary Internet users of the cost of data, which often negatively impacts the user’s lived experience of the Internet as a platform for free self-expression.
Another potential barrier to using the Internet is the threat posed by communications surveillance. The revelations by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden, that the NSA was conducting mass surveillance of United States (US) citizens, as well as political leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have created a massive international controversy. Other countries have also been exposed as conducting mass surveillance too. This aspect of the project explores the implications of communications surveillance for internet freedom, and communications usage generally, in South Africa.
South Africa is not a terrorist target, yet growing social unrest and increasing protests means that the temptation is there for less principled members of the security apparatus to abuse the state’s surveillance capabilities to advantage the ruling group in the ruling party and disadvantage their perceived detractors. This possibility is not farfetched. In 2005, the state’s mass surveillance capacity was misused to spy on perceived opponents of the-then contender for the Presidency, Jacob Zuma. In 2010, Sunday Times journalists Mzilikazi wa Afrika had his communications intercepted to track his journalistic activities. The Inspector-general of Intelligence declared this interception lawful, although the police had given very vague and insubstantial grounds for the direction. Then later in 2010, it emerged that he and his colleague Stephan Hofstatter had had their communications surveilled, but this time unlawfully, they allege. The state has brought a criminal case against the police officers involved, and the case was due to be heard in court at the time of writing.
Several politicians and activists have alleged that their communications are being surveilled, although it is difficult to say whether this is the case. The Mail and Guardian has quoted sources inside the police and State Security Agency alleging that security personnel often don’t even bother obtaining directions to intercept communications. In 2013, it emerged during a trial that the Crime Intelligence Division of the South African Police Service (SAPS) had placed members of the Boeremag under surveillance while in prison, which included intercepting communications between the accused and their lawyers, in violation of attorney-client privilege. While it is extremely difficult to establish the extent of the problem, these incidents makes the case for reforms to ensure that the state’s surveillance capacity is not abused again.
South Africa has a law that governs the surveillance of domestic communications on both criminal justice and national security matters, the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communications Related Information Act (RICA). In spite of the fact that its drafters attempted to strike the correct balance between the interests of justice and national security on the one hand, and civil liberties on the other, it ignores many of the most basic protections set out in the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, or the ‘Necessary and Proportionate’ principles. An added problem is that foreign signals intelligence is unregulated by RICA, which is probably unconstitutional. The country’s bulk monitoring capacity resides in the interception centre that undertakes foreign signals intelligence gathering; in other words, the state surveillance agency that has the greatest potential for mass surveillance is the one that is least regulated by law. The level of secrecy in relation to communications surveillance is unacceptably high.
The Department of State Security intends to launch a review of intelligence policy, to assess the strengths and weaknesses of all national security-related policies. The Department of Communications has also launched a review of ICT policy and legislation. The Centre will use these reviews to present researched alternatives to the existing communications surveillance regimes that enhance respect for basic rights and freedoms, and thereby provide South African civil society organisations with the research capacity to advocate for changes, should they be warranted. It will build on research the MPDP has already undertaken on communications surveillance in South Africa, funded by the Open Society Foundation for South Africa, and will seek to promote journalism on the surveillance capacities of the state, the uses to which they are being put, and their impacts on democratic deliberation, including in the media.
2. Media diversity and transformation
In the early 2000's Parliament established the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) in partnership with the media industry and the community media sector to support the remainder of the grassroots press. However, since the establishment of the MDDA, in its practices in government, the ANC has adopted a hands-off approach towards the industry, preferring to allow market forces to determine the fate of the media, with anti-competitive practices being checked by the competition authorities. Evidence has emerged that this approach, which amounts to an adaptation to neoliberalism, but with a public service top-up through the targeted subsidies of the MDDA, is inadequate to the task of realising diversity.
The Centre will review the adequacy of existing measures to promote diversity, considers international models for realising substantive media diversity, and suggest policy options to feed into Parliament's discussions on media transformation.
The Centre aims to implement a media diversity measurement model in order to more accurately assess the actual level of diversity of content within the South African media landscape, and amongst different audience sectors (whom has access to what). Barriers to more meaningful media access experienced by economically disadvantaged audience segments will be identified and analysed for the purpose of recommending measures to reduce such barriers.
In the anticipated parliamentary hearings around the Media Appeals Tribunal will be critical for all stakeholders and participants. It is envisaged that this research would be valuable for all stakeholders in developing richer understandings relevant to issues of any regulation to be debated with regard to addressing the pressing question of media diversity and transformation.
Equally important to an assessment of media content diversity is the manner in which the media, particularly the mainstream and corporate media, behaves when reporting. In South Africa, privatised and corporate media are mostly consumed by a minority middle-class audience which has adequate expendable income to pay for access to expensive subscription television services, pricey investigative newspapers and sufficient Internet data to make the user’s experience of the online world a meaningful one. Because the private and corporate media are available only to a specific audience, it is the interests of this very particular audience which are predominantly served by the majority of media content. A resulting dearth of the representation of a diversity of voices, opinions and world views, particularly those relevant to grassroots communities, symptomatically becomes apparent within the media. The mainstream news media have been repeatedly accused of misrepresenting and/or ignoring the conflicts and struggles taking place throughout the country within grassroots and poor communities.
3. Communications policy and the public interest
There are a number of communications policy review processes which are due to begin soon, or are currently taking place in South Africa. The MPDP participated in some of these (such as the yet to be concluded SABC Editorial Policy Review Process and the ongoing ICT policy review process). In order to equip the project to continue in its efforts to contribute to communication policy in the public interest, the next phase of research and participation in the policy review negotiation processes will include:
- An extensive of review of the 1998 white paper on broadcasting, including a scan of the broadcasting legislation and regulations currently in place to assess policy and legislative alignment;
- An assessment of the SABC’s financial viability in relation to its content output
- An extensive review of completed research on funding options for PSB and community media in; and
- A yearly political assessment of the South African Broadcasting Media Landscape
- Ongoing assessment of the unfolding DTT-process in South Africa
- An audience-centred assessment of the state of broadcasting in the public interest
The twin issues of a changing funding environment and the convergence of communications mediums and sectors have important implications for a public interest approach to the South African Broadcasting Media Landscape. The key issue here is that, converging communications regimes all too often neglect the public interest, in spite of the fact that convergence is often trumpeted as a means of bridging the digital divide and promoting consumer choice. Added to this, how the media is funded, to what extend and by who, has serious implications for its functioning in the public interest. It is no secret for example that PSBs need to be substantially funded if they are to compete in a crowded broadcasting arena and, more importantly, that they must be funded predictably in order to ensure that funding cannot be used to control a PSB. This section of the research project therefore aims to examine how media policy can best be managed with regard to maintaining the public interest as a foremost priority and concern. The project will produce a list of recommendations and suggestions for current and future communications policy review processes geared towards the prioritisation of the public interest in processes of policy review. The suggestions and recommendations will be formulated such that it is adaptable also to the changing (converging) media landscape.
