1. Summary and recommendations

Both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation are in the process of introducing bi-media operations. Given that they seem to be further ahead in this regard, we felt that it may be instructive to look at their experiences so far, and draw lessons. We are made to believe that the SABC's bi-media operation is modelled closely in the BBC's, so it would be especially important to consider their experiences. While we have been unable to undertake a comprehensive review of these operations, we would like to make some general observations on the basis of the information we have gleaned:

• According to a National Executive Committee member of the National Union of Journalists in Britain, the BBC's bi-media operation has been frozen, although it continues to function on the level of newsgathering. The further integration of radio and television has been frozen as the process has reportedly been beset with problems, leading to embarrassing public controversies. If the SABC's operation is as closely modelled on the BBC's one, then it is important for us to understand more fully what the nature of the problems are at the BBC so that they are not repeated at the SABC. What also needs to be understood is why bi-media implementation seems to have had more positive outcomes at the ABC, when compared to the BBC.

  There are eerie parallels between recent controversies around editorial control of current affairs programmes at the SABC and the controversy that flared up when the BBC attempted to 'demote' existing editors by bringing in a new layer of 'bi-medial' editorial management (see below, under 'structure of bi-media news operation, British Broadcasting Corporation'). Unless the SABC addresses the problem of the powers of existing editorial management in relation to the new bi-media management structure in an open, consultative and transparent way, we should expect conflict to continue.

   

• We are aware of the fact that the Media Workers' Association of South Africa has declared a dispute with the SABC around the implementation of its bi-media operation. We understand that one of the main reasons for this dispute is that the union claims that it has not been consulted about its implementation. It should be clear from the information below on the BBC and the ABC that bi-media implementation is fraught with difficulties even when there is union involvement. Not to involve unions is a certain recipe for disaster, and the Board and management need to consider this problem very carefully, as the bi-media plans must not continue without union involvement. The stability of news and current affairs - which is an essential precondition for freedom of expression at the SABC - is at stake.

   

• We understand that one of the main reasons why the SABC is implementing a bi-media approach is to save costs. It is not clear with respect to the BBC and the ABC that these savings are being achieved, and in fact, there is evidence to suggest that in relation to the BBC, some expensive mistakes may have been made in relation to co-location and the introduction of new technology. This evidence should be investigated, to establish whether the cost-saving benefits of bi-media is a proven fact, or a shaky assumption. The SABC cannot afford the luxury of expensive mistakes.

   

• Given the limited experiences at the BBC and the ABC, and experiences in other commercial broadcasters, questions are being raised about whether a bi-media approach, and multi-skilling generally, improves or degrades the quality of journalism. While this approach allows broadcasters to make more productive use of existing staff, especially on specialist desks, the quality of output is becoming the source of some concern. One commentator has noted that the BBC's bi-media approach is leading to '..radio reports and interviews being mere audio tracks of pieces produced primarily for TV.' The wisdom of this approach for a public broadcaster, which should strive towards quality reporting, needs to be assessed. In short, there is scope for a full and public review of the very bases for a bi-media approach in the context of the SABC, given its mixed outcomes in other contexts.

  Experiences both from the ABC and the BBC suggest that, in the process of cutting out duplication, the bi-media approach also leads to the cutting down of programming diversity. During the controversy at the BBC around the appointment of bi-media editorial management, comments were made about bi-media leading to a 'dumbing down' of standards, and the production of a sausage machine churning out the same product across the schedule. These negative implications also need to be investigated.

   

• The idea of developing a pro forma memo is a useful one with respect to conflict around editorial decisions in the newsroom (see 'Dispute Resolution', under Australian Broadcasting Corporation), and should be considered.

   

• While it seems to be accepted practice at the ABC and the BBC to operate on the basis of 'referral upwards' when there are controversial decisions to be made, it is not considered good practice for senior editorial managers to act as journalists as well. This trend seems to have become standard practice at the SABC, with the executive editor: input and the editor-in-chief: output conducting interviews and covering stories. This fudging of the lines between editorial and management needs to be investigated.

  It should be noted that in compiling information on the ABC and the BBC, approaches were made to individuals both in management, and in the trade unions (in the case of Australia, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance - incorporating the Australian Journalists' Association - and in the case of Britain, the National Union of Journalists). It should be placed on record that we found it exceedingly difficult to obtain comment from the BBC on their bi-media operation.

2.1 Reasons for introduction of bi-media
The ABC introduced bi-media into its news operation after the significant cuts to the broadcaster's government grant in 1996. There were two main reasons for its introduction: firstly to make more productive use of existing resources in the light of severe budget cuts, and secondly, to prepare news and current affairs for the changing media environment.

With respect to the second reason, the ABC recognised that increasingly, broadcasters were moving to digital methods of capturing and storing information, which would inevitably have a profound impact on news gathering and delivery. As a result, broadcasters are going back and examining the whole chain of content production and delivery.

With respect to news, it is now becoming possible to deliver content from a variety of platforms, such as radio, television, datacasting and the internet. So, if a journalist files a story using sound and a hand held camera for visuals, this content could be stored as digital data, and packaged for radio and the internet. In order to stay ahead as the foremost provider of news in Australia, the ABC therefore decided to restructure their news operations to take advantage of this convergence of technologies, and introduced a 'cross-media' operation ('cross-media' rather than 'bi-media' is the preferred term at the ABC, as news delivery is not confined to radio and television as it is at the SABC, but includes the internet as well.). The success of restructuring rests on the multi-skilling of journalists, who are increasingly being expected to perform a range of functions from reporting to editing.

2.2 Structure of bi-media operation
The ABC is a relatively more decentralised operation compared to the BBC, which may be linked to the fact that Australia has a federal structure. In fact, their bi-media vision is based on the fact that it could allow different regions to specialise in different programme areas. In fact, central management has expressed its commitment to allow the regions a degree of autonomy with respect to how they implement bi-media.

The ABC's head office is in Sydney, and it has numerous regional offices. The ABC has local news bulletins, and used to have local current affairs programmes as well. However, once bi-media was introduced, these programmes were phased out for cost reasons, and programmes are now produced at head office.

The introduction of bi-media necessitated the co-location of newsrooms, which has proved to be a complex logistical exercise as the structure of newsrooms in different ABC offices was not uniform. Offices in cities such as Melbourne and Sydney have their radio and television operations located in separate buildings. Other offices have radio and television based on different floors in the same building. So far, the only offices that have co-located their offices in preparation for bi-media are in Adelaide and Hobart. The union organising in these offices, the Australian Journalists Association (an affiliate of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance) has still to conduct a comprehensive study of the ups and downs of implementing cross-media using these offices as case studies, but intends to do so in the near future.

The operation is headed nationally by a head of news and current affairs. This is a management position, and involves its incumbent in budgeting and planning. The head could also be called upon to make editorial decisions in the rare instance that an editorial dispute could not be resolved at a lower level. Below him are separate heads for news and current affairs, and each office has its own head of news and current affairs.

ABC management and the MEAA have agreed to the establishment of one 'intake' desk for news, which also incorporates the 'output' function. This desk is headed by one Executive Producer, a position that is rotated between two people. The integration of all these functions under one head allows the producer to oversee all these functions, including the assignment of stories and continuous assessment of which stories are coming back, and which ones have been completed and are ready for broadcast. The first producer begins work at about 5.00 in the morning, and finishes in the afternoon, and is primarily concerned with radio. The second producer begins in the morning, and therefore overlaps with the first for a few hours: this producer is primarily concerned with television.

Bi-media is being implemented at the news-gathering stage, and is also reportedly leading to a more efficient use of journalists on specialist desks as their expertise can be put to use in a variety of different media. However, further down the production line, specialists are still needed to package the content for different media.

2.3 Cost implications of bi-media
Apparently, the implementation of cross-media has not resulted in retrenchments, as spare staff have been redeployed to the specialist desks. It has also not resulted in real savings, and in fact is proving to be fairly expensive to implement: in any event, according to Jeff Herriot, the main reason for its implementation was apparently to prepare ABC news for the future in the light of convergence, and to '...ensure productivity gains rather than efficiency savings'. It is not clear to the union, though, how savings will be made, as the co-location and multi-skilling process has already cost a great deal.

2.4 ABC and commercial activities
While the ABC does sell some news to other broadcasters, it does not consider this commercial activity as part of its core operation, and rather considers it to be incidental to its core mandate. Although the current managing director has repeatedly stated that the ABC would not commercialise, his term of office expires next year, and members of the ABC Board may be increasingly inclined towards commercialising sections of its operations. However, they would probably not have an easy time doing so, as a recent public review process saw the ABC's audiences resisting suggestions of commercialisation.

2.5 Labour and journalistic implications of bi-media
The MEAA has insisted on the ABC consulting in at all stage of bi-media implementation, especially with respect to the co-location plans. However, the MEAA has expressed concern about the labour implications of bi-media, and is particularly worried that it may lead to a decline in the standard of journalism and worsening working conditions, as journalists are gradually made to do more with less. As a result, they have placed certain demands before the Corporation to be negotiated and included in a new agreement. These demands are as follows:

• There should be adequate training for journalists undertaking bi-media work;
• There should be no further increase in workload;
• There should be no decline in the quality of stories;
• Staffing levels should not be affected, and news stories should not be reduced;
• There should be a reward and fair remuneration in return for journalists becoming multi-skilled.

Insensitive handling of 'intake' duties has already been in evidence, where on-the-road journalists have been assigned to a particular stories, and then called back to the office to package the stories for another medium. As a result, follow-through becomes difficult: for example, one journalist was called back from a court story to package the story for one medium and, as a result, missed important developments in the court proceedings.

2.6 Dispute resolution
Disputes on labour relations matters are dealt with through a grievance procedure that management and journalists have agreed on. Disputes around editorial matters are rather more difficult to deal with, though, and there is no mechanism in place dedicated to dealing with such complaints. The ABC has been very sensitive to accusations of bias since the new government came into office in 1996, and has apparently 'bent over backwards' to ensure balance in its news and current affairs. As a result, the phenomenon of editorial staff questioning editorial decisions is 'a rarity'.

One method that the union has implemented in dealing with disputes has been the development of a pro forma memo. It has recognised that journalists may be given instructions that they do not agree with, and that there are no staff meetings planned where this disagreement could be aired. The journalist could then fill in a pro forma memo, stating that they will carry out the instructions of their superior, but they do not agree with this instruction: this formulation was designed to protect the journalist involved from accusations of insubordination. If these pro forma memos build up in relation to a particular line manager, then the union would investigate a case against him or her as clearly the manager has developed a pattern of problematic behaviour.

3. British Broadcasting Corporation

The BBC started to promote the idea of bi-medial news about 4 years ago. Initially, the Corporation started to emphasis the importance of multi-skilling, where for example, journalists would be able to report and edit, which evolved into a full-scale promotion of the bi-media approach. The BBC has cited two reasons for its introduction: to make the best use of journalists on the ground and to achieve cost efficiency by cutting out duplication and waste. The BBC has in fact been implementing bi-media in news gathering in the last few years, and in 1998, radio and television journalists were relocated into a building built especially for the purpose.

3.1 Structure of bi-media operation
The introduction of bi-media coincided with the introduction of a number of new news services, such as a 24 hour news channel called 5 Live. According to the National Union of Journalists, these new services were launched using money saved through staff retrenchments in production areas. However, the overall number of news journalists has increased recently given the need to service new services, so the savings have been offset even further through this expansion.

Originally, the editorial management structure was geared towards the separate production of radio and television. Every editorial editor had an editor assigned to it: editors of programmes and designated areas enjoyed relative autonomy, and managed their own budgets. This autonomy was not complete, though, as they would report to their managing editor of head of department. According to the NUJ, at the beginning of last year, this arrangement began to change when management began to phase in a bi-medial management structure. In doing so, they created posts for a series of bi-media executive editors, who would also be responsible for budgets, and made it clear that existing editors would report to them. The rationale for phasing in this newly-created layer of 'super editors' was that control should be centralised to ensure that the operation was more tightly managed to achieved the sort of efficiency outcomes the BBC hoped for: they were especially keen to cut out duplication between programmes.

Editorial staff reacted strongly to what they saw as an erosion of their power and autonomy, and apparently launched a protest against the new arrangement. This protest led to bad publicity for the BBC in the British press, which embarrassed management. As a result, according to the NUJ they backtracked on their original plans, and the new editors powers were reduced to monitoring and ceremonial functions (for newspaper articles on this incident, see Appendix 1).

Presently, the head of the operation is the Chief Executive Officer of News, who also sits on the BBC Board. Under him is the head of news gathering, the head of daily news, and the head of current affairs (which are both bi-media editorial posts. The CEO of News may make final editorial decisions on controversial matters, according to the principle of 'referral upwards'. Apparently, this whole layer of editorial management do not cover stories, as this is considered inappropriate given that '...they are too close to management'.

3.2 Labour and journalistic implications
The implementation of bi-media in the BBC has been beset with problems. The Board of Governors itself has admitted as much in a report it released in 1998. According to this report:

'The introduction of new services and the need to operate in new ways put staff under great pressure. Management proposals to introduce executive editors for bi-media news programming in the newly completed Stage 6 building at Television Centre were not well handled. The proposed redesignation of programme editors as associate editors gave a misleading impression of the BBC's thinking, both inside and outside the BBC. We welcomed the subsequent re-affirmation of the importance of editorial distinctiveness and creativity. Revised proposals will deliver efficiency while protecting the breadth of the BBC's news agenda.'

While most of this quote is an acknowledgement of the problems created by its introduction of the bi-media management structure, it also refers to another set of problems encountered in co-locating radio and television.

Apparently, vast sums of money have already been spent building the new news offices, and co-locating the journalists (radio journalists were based at Broadcasting House in Central London, and television journalists were based in West London). The intention was to move both sets of journalists into the building, and then fully 'bi-medialise' their activities.

When journalists moved to the new centre, management apparently introduced a totally new windows-based news editorial system. This system was a 'one-stop-shop', where journalists could write scripts, and edit audio and video material. Apparently, the training that was provided to operate the new system was inadequate, leading to a situation where journalists were expected to still produce their stories on deadline using equipment they were not familiar with. The equipment was also complicated and cumbersome compared to the old, tried and tested technology, leading to frustration as journalists found it extremely difficult to operate. In addition, management made the assumption that all journalists were windows-literate, which proved not to be the case. As a result of these frustrations, journalists 'revolted', and leaked the story to the newspapers. This level of discomfort with the changes suggested that journalists had not been taken along sufficiently at the planning stage.

Another problem related to workload. Journalists on the television side resisted the change, as they feared having to work the long hours worked by radio journalists (given the higher volume of radio news, and the fact that it is a 24 hour operation). As a result, television journalists opposed the implementation of bi-media. Also many radio journalists started moving into television as the hours were easier, leading to a weakening of the radio operations. The unions organising at the BBC had 'lots of detailed talks' with management about how to work less unsociable hours. A number of the older, more experienced journalists were also resistant to the idea of bi-media, as they had developed a speciality in their chosen medium over the years.

The introduction of bi-media training has also been fraught. In June 1998, the broadcasting union BECTU brought its members out on strike after BBC management closed negotiations on a number of issues, including the introduction of multiskilling in news and production. At the time, BECTU stated that:

'The BBC wants to introduce new ways of working across all areas of the organisation, including News and Production. The unions are prepared to talk about these new ways of working, but only if there are guarantees on job security and protection of earnings'.

According to a member of the NUJ's national executive committee, all these problems have led to the bi-media operation being frozen. Training is still continuing, and bi-media still continued to operate at the level of newsgathering, but further than that, its implementation has been stopped dead in its tracks. Apparently, radio and television have not been integrated within the new centre, and it has even been suggested that the move was a mistake and that there may need to be another move again in the near future.
SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION TO SABC TASK GROUP ON INDEPENDENCE

Freedom of Expression Institute We have been requested to supply information on two suggestions: a complaints committee and a mechanism for the SABC board to hear direct representations from the public:

1. Complaints Committee

   In our submission we proposed that the board should set up an internal complaints procedure to enable members of staff to raise questions about the refusal by editorial management to cover certain stories, the canning of stories or the manipulation of stories from one angle to another.

   On reflection, the mechanism proposed could be wider and embrace staff complaints in relation to conduct of editorial management, duties and demands made on staff though there must be a cut off point between such complaints and those which are within the purview of the trade unions.

   We visualise an independent body which should be a combination of the print media ombudsman and the Appeals Committee structure. The print Ombudsman adjudicates complaints, negotiates between the parties -- ie, the complainant and the newspaper -- and if that is not successful the matter is referred to the Appeals Committee.

   An ombudsman acting in this fashion in the SABC environment would be problematic so it is proposed that a complaints committee should be formed to carry out the role of ombudsman. This should be composed of say, five people, of which three are from outside the SABC and two from the SABC, one from editorial management and one from the unions. The non-SABC persons should be versed in media affairs, preferably broadcasting. One of the non-SABC persons should be the chairperson.

   The committee will have powers to adjudicate disputes and make rulings. It should have the power to censure and, if greater punishment is deemed essential, to recommend to the board that the offending party should be suspended or dismissed. Appeal from the findings of this committee could be either to the SABC Board or to the courts.

   A code and set of rules of procedure should be drawn up and be agreed by all parties likely to be involved in proceedings -- such as unions, staff associations, editorial and administrative management and the SABC Board.

   An essential feature of the code and the procedural rules should be protection for a complainant and procedures to guarantee that a protection is maintained well after a hearing.

   The funding of the committee shall be for the account of the SABC.

   The code of conduct of the SABC and the print ombudsman should be perused to enable a code to be drawn up and similar practice can be followed to set up rules of procedure.

   We at FXI would be happy to take part in the discussions on these issues.

   Also to be formulated is a procedure for the selection of the non-SABC members of the committee which could be dealt with by inviting nominations from interested persons, setting up a selection committee composed of representatives of SABC management and the unions under an impartial chairman who could be a member of the Constitutional Court. A similar procedure was devised for the setting up the print ombudsman and appeals committee.

    

2. Public Imputs to the SABC Board

   Though members of the SABC Board are expected to represent the public it cannot be expected that such a small body with limited resources, if any, for canvassing public opinion would be able to act as a body fully representational of the public.

   The FXI has long contended that as the SABC is the public broadcaster it should have greater interaction with the public and that despite the valuable and representational services of the board members, there needs to be an additional mechanism where these members can become better acquainted with the public view.

   The method of doing this is to create greater transparency around Board meetings. They should be publicised in advance with their agendas and the public invited to make representations to the board and attend a portion of the meetings. It is accepted that certain matters that come before the board require to be dealt with in committee before they can be made public. Apart from matters relating to employees or others there is the fact that the SABC is part of a highly competitive environment and would require to maintain commercial secrecy over some of its activities. But that does not preclude a public session where interested institutions, organisations or individuals would be able to air their views on broadcasting matters.

   In the era before apartheid, public institutions such as hospitals and other services held part of their meetings in public and this helped considerably in keeping the public informed about such institutions while keeping those institutions closer to the people they served.

   The mechanism and rules for such public sessions can be devised and the FXI would welcome the opportunity of taking part in the process. It would have the major advantage of taking the SABC to the public and reducing its current monolithic image.

   Notes

3.