The Freedom of Expression Institute is deeply disappointed about most of the findings of the SABC Task Team into editorial independence and other matters. The FXI expended a great deal of time and energy in contributing to this investigation in good faith, in spite of misgivings about the fact that the investigation was not an independent one.

On the whole, the report flies in the face of a whole host of problems brought to our attention by SABC journalists, past and present. If the task team found difficulty in substantiating a number of allegations, as it claims, then it only has itself to blame. It became apparent to us during the investigation that many journalists simply did not trust the Task Team and the consultative counsel on the basis that it was widely seen as an internal investigation using counsel that had acted for SABC management in the past. As a result, journalists were extremely reluctant to come forward, which is borne out by the paltry number who participated in the investigation. The SABC should take responsibility for the fact that it made it practically impossible for journalists to come forward through its own choices, rather than criticising organisations such as ourselves for representing the problems that were brought to us as best as we possibly could, given the circumstances.

However, the lack of response does not detract from the validity of the evidence that was presented, which the Task Team has seen fit largely to dismiss. In effect they compared journalists' allegations with management's allegations, and decided to side with management. As a result, this was not an proper investigation as we had hoped, but a whitewash.

On the finding concerning freedom of expression and the free flow of ideas, journalistic integrity and editorial independence, we are shocked that the examples of the cutting or pulling of stories have been dismissed as ‘common editorial practice'. It is outrageous to suggest that the pulling of a programme - such as the Special Assignment programme on witchcraft - should be considered common editorial practice. It is internationally accepted practice that a programme that has been scheduled and advertised should be pulled only in the most exceptional circumstances: SABC management has failed to make out a compelling case for why they did so, so the accusation of internal censorship stands. The report effectively clears the way for SABC news and current affairs management to pull more and more programmes without explanation, which is unconscionable.

In the process of verifying our statement that allegations are being made of an increasingly unaccountable and autocratic management, we facilitated a meeting between the Board and one of our sources. The source gave evidence about the story involving the Minister of Welfare and Pensions. What the report neglected to mention was his testimony that the story was ‘corrected' by editorial management after the Minister phoned the SABC to complain about coverage of the story. In response to this aspect of the report, our source said the following:

‘If clear cut cases of interference in editorial independence are ignored or are seen as acceptable, or as editorial management's prerogative to balance stories, then we have a problem, as then SABC news management are in the business of enforcing bias. It is a pity that the so-called task team confirmed what many people beforehand thought would happen - a full-on whitewash'.

The report also states that the merger of radio and television into one bi-media operation is not resulting in increased centralisation of editorial control. This statement is simply wrong. Logically, the merger of radio and television, news and current affairs, and their positioning under one editorial management team, is de facto centralisation of editorial control. This centralisation of control is leading to an erosion of the editorial authority of the existing executive producers, and the placing of this authority in the hands of the bi-media editorial management team. In fact, bi-media operations are implemented in broadcasters in order to centralise control so that news management is able to prevent duplication of stories on radio and television, to ensure similar story angles and to cut costs. We simply cannot understand why the Board chooses to ignore the obvious. This is strange given that this model was thrown out by journalists at the British Broadcasting Corporation two years ago, on the basis that it eroded the editorial independence of executive producers and would have turned the newsroom into a ‘sausage factory' churning out an homogenised product.

It is astonishing that the report denies that centralisation is taking place, yet it calls for ‘Special Assignment' to become an integral part of news and current affairs, as ‘the need for it to exist as a distinct entity is no longer apparent'. This is simply a contradiction in terms. Rather the right of executive producers to act as programme editors should be entrenched across all current affairs programmes. The lengths that the Board has gone to in the report to deny the obvious, does nothing to refute opinions expressed to us that bi-media is being implemented to centralise opinion to filter out stories that may embarrass the government. Whether this bias has been proved or disproved through studies (like the HSRC research, for example) is not at issue: what is at issue is that bi-media ensures that such control is possible, now or in the future.

It is also surprising that the report vindicates the unhealthy practice of editorial managers like Snuki Zikalala and Phil Molefe acting as journalists at the same time. Their motivation for vindicating this practice is that other broadcasters allow it. We have spoken to trade unions and management in both the BBC and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and they have roundly condemned this practice on the basis that editorial managers are simply too close to management to be able to act as journalists in an unbiased manner. The fact that the report glosses over the deep problems inherent in blurring the lines between editorial and management is alarming.

We welcome the fact that the Board has pinpointed the problem of incompetence and inconsistency in the management of contracts, which is clearly extremely problematic. However, we are saddened by the fact that they did not recognise a problem that we raised in relation to contracts, namely that news and current affairs staff should preferably be permanent employees. This would eliminate the possibility of journalists being censored by management through the non-renewal of their contracts (or the threat of it), a form of security that is extremely important in politically sensitive areas like news and current affairs.

Contact: Raymond Louw: Tel: 646-8790, cell: 082-446-5155 Laura Pollecutt, Tel: 403-8403, cell: 083-604-1073 Jane Duncan: Tel: 403-8403.