Presently, the South African Broadcasting Corporation is restructuring Television News Productions, its in-house news and current affairs department, by merging television and radio operations. Termed 'bi-media', the merger is being effected ostensibly to save money and to take advantage of new technologies. Bi-media news operations are becoming increasingly common in other parts of the world, and in fact two other public broadcasters, the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation are also moving towards bi-media news operations.

The logic behind bi-media is that by re-skilling journalists to operate in both media, TNP news will be able to deploy them more efficiently, especially those journalists on specialist desks. A bi-media approach should also cut out duplication of stories in radio and television, as editors will monitor the input and output of stories for both media. In the process, they will ensure that radio and television do not send out mixed signals by adopting different angles on the same story. Bi-media should also avoid potentially embarrassing situations where, for example, radio journalists may break a story that their television counterparts are not even aware of.

The SABC is also intent on preparing TNP for the changing media environment, where digital methods of capturing and storing information are being used more frequently in newsrooms. These changes open up new vistas for news operations by increasing the number of platforms for the delivery of information: for example, if a journalist files a story using sound and a hand held camera for visuals, the content could be stored as digital data, and packaged for radio, television and the Internet.

The SABC kicked-started its bi-media preparations in June this year. It is in the process of moving radio news into Television Centre at its Johannesburg-based head office, as it feels that co-location of radio and television news is necessary to give full effect to its bi-media plans. Combined national news diaries and daily diary meetings have already been implemented, while a separate long-term diary will be kept identifying current affairs stories for both media.

On the face of it, the logic behind bi-media seems impeccable. The reality is somewhat different, both at the SABC and the other public broadcasters. The benefits may well be overestimated. In order to achieve news integration and cost-saving, editorial control may be centralised under a team of bi-media editorial managers, leading to the erosion of control enjoyed by existing executive editors and producers. These changes can create uncertainty, tension and even outright conflict about chains of editorial command. A bi-media approach also leads to increasing workloads for journalists, as they are expected to do more with less. There are also mixed signals about whether merging news media actually save costs. In addition the quality of reporting may actually be eroded rather than enhanced.

The SABC has introduced a layer of bimedia management to manage the merger.The post of CEO of News was created and filled by Enoch Sithole. Under him, the following bi-media posts were created: Executive Editor, Input (Snuki Zikalala), Editor-in-Chief, Output (Phil Molefe), and Head of News and Current Affairs (Themba Mthembu). Controversy has dogged these appointments, leading to the Media Workers Association declaring a dispute over Sithole's and Zikalala's posts on the basis that proper appointment procedure was not followed. The appointments have also led to outright conflict over editorial control in current affairs. Possibly the most widely publicised conflict involved Special Assignment Executive Producer Max du Preez, and Mthembu, who in Du Preez's words 'destroyed the tried and tested international system of executive producers and programme editors' by asserting more control over editorial decisions and programme budgets (which were managed by the programme itself up to that stage).

This conflict culminated in Du Preez's contract not being renewed by management. Journalists have expressed confusion about the new chain of command, and the fact that the creation of these new posts led to a lengthening of the chain: according to one journalist 'the principle of flat management has been thrown out', a principle that was established in the TNP transformation process in 1994. Journalists have generally felt a tremendous sense of ownership of this process, as it was consultative, and it attempted to entrench the values of public service broadcasting in news and current affairs. In fact, MWASA is also contesting bi-media on the basis that journalists on the whole have not been consulted about the new changes, which should be a prerequisite if their members' working conditions and job descriptions are going to change.

Other controversies have also surfaced, including allegations by current and former staff members of stories that are critical of government being spiked. Allegations also persist about bias towards the ruling party, the African National Congress. These controversies led to Friends of Public Broadcasting pressurising the SABC Board to institute an investigation into editorial independence and other matters, to assess the veracity of these allegations. The Board has not yet released its findings.

Ironically, the SABC is virtually replicating the BBC's bi-news management structure, the source of huge controversy in Britain. In 1997, the BBC's management attempted to impose five bi-media 'super editor' posts on the existing newsroom structure. Executive editors were invited to apply for these posts, although it was made clear that those who did not co-operate would either lose their jobs, or be demoted to the status of associate editors. These 'super-editors' would also take the control of programme budgets away from executive editors to make it easier to implement centralised cost-saving measures.

BBC staff revolted against the proposed changes and decided to boycott the posts. They also drafted a letter of protest to BBC management, which was signed by hundreds of staff, and a number of the most prominent programmes editors threatened to resign in protest. The National Union of Journalists condemned BBC management and threatened industrial action. Management's plans were rejected on the basis that centralised editorial control would homogenise programmes, creating a 'sausage factory' out of the news and current affairs department. Fears were expressed that the end result would be the 'dumbing down' of the quality and distinctiveness of reporting for each medium, leading to 'radio reports and interviews being mere audio tracks of pieces produced primarily for TV'.

Editors claimed not to have been consulted about the changes, and pointed out that management was creating the impression that they wanted to crack down on independent journalism in the BBC: after all, in the words of the Guardian newspaper, '...BBC management will simply have to deal with five executive editors who are easier to control'. After a week of stinging criticism in the media, management was forced to back down and review the implementation of their bi-media plans.

The BBC has spent vast sums of money in co-locating radio and television journalists into a specially-designed building, and introducing complex new 'one-stop-shop' technology for the production and editing of audio and visual material. Many television journalists resisted the changes on the basis that their hours would increase, and journalists across the board expressed concern about the labour implications of having 'roving job descriptions' where they would be expected to rotate between different programmes and media. The new technology also led to frustration as it reportedly proved to be cumbersome and complicated. In the light of opposition from journalists, the BBC management is backtracking on its bi-media plans: it is employing more dedicated staff for radio. It is even considering moving again from its new bi-media headquarters.

The ABC's implementation of bi-media has not been beset with such extreme problems. It is not clear precisely why it has succeeded where the BBC has failed, although it would seem that their decision to introduce bi-media was governed more by the need to enhance the spread of their news service by introducing new technologies, rather than by the need to save money to cross-subsidise commercial services. In any event, bi-media has not resulted in any significant cost-savings so far, and in fact it has proved to be fairly expensive to implement. The ABC is also a relatively more decentralised operation than the BBC, mirroring the federal nature of the country, so centralisation would be infinitely more difficult to achieve. As a result, bi-media implementation seems to have proceeded in a more considered fashion, with union involvement at every stage.

Given the SABC's short but rocky road to bi-media, and the eerie parallels with the BBC's experiences, there is clearly an urgent need for a full public review of the wisdom of these changes. This review should also take into account the experience of broadcasters that are further down the bi-media road, such as the BBC, to establish whether the cost-saving benefits of bi-media are a proven fact, or a shaky assumption. The SABC cannot afford the luxury of expensive mistakes. The SABC also cannot afford to attract any more controversy around editorial bias and control. Given that bi-media as practised by its 'model', the BBC, lends itself to both economic and political control, one should expect these controversies to continue unless a review is effected.

Why should we worry in the first place? Surely, as more news outlets become available, reliance on SABC news will decrease? Wrong. According to the SABC's 1997 annual report, more than 85% of South Africans rely on the SABC for their main source of news. More than 52% rely on radio, almost 34% rely on television, and just under 14% rely on newspapers and other sources. Given these statistics, SABC news and current affairs is simply too important to gamble with, as it plays a central access to information role in South African society. For this reason, we must continue to demand transparency and accountability in how it operates, and to struggle for its independence and integrity.