The AAA is fully in agreement with the principle of promoting access to media by marginalised groups and to enhance media pluralism. Communication scientists all over the world have realised since the early 1980’s that the 4 key information trends which go hand-in-hand with the communications explosion viz. information overload, alienation and resistance, the information paradox and the information elite, will require the emergence of smaller-scale media to satisfy the more localised and interpersonal needs of the smaller community and subculture. The trend was also clearly predicted by Toffler in "The Third Wave" (1980) in which he described the succession of what he called the paper blizzard and the reign of the mass media, by the demassifying influences of the rising number of

local papers, radio and television networks. In marketing terms this trend has become known as stronger segmentation or niche marketing. In sociological terms, this has been called a shift from the "we thinking" to the "me thinking" syndrome, and in media terms it is called a resistance against the "melting pot" function. Respected communication theories at the heart of the matter are the uses-and-gratification theory and the knowledge-gap hypothesis. In terms of the uses and gratification theory the emphasis is no longer on what media do to people, but what people do with the media in terms of their own uses and needs for them. The knowledge gap hypothesis states that mass communication might actually increase the difference in knowledge between members of different social classes. Information is generated, used and communicated within an ever shrinking

-2-

information "elite" with the consequence that ever fewer people are able to check the information on which important decisions affecting their daily lives, is based.

At the basis of this issue is, therefore, nothing less than the very idea of a democratic society with a diversity of media, in which at least the main social, cultural and political groupings can express their views.

It makes infinite sense for a country like South Africa, especially, that a workable media development and diversity policy is established, particularly because it is such a heterogeneous, complex and multicultural mix of an information rich and information poor society.

From a marketing point of view, the obvious approach would be that communications must become more market-orientated, which would require great market expertise and ethical responsibilities of the communication practitioner in order to satisfy audience needs and maintain the credibility of the media.

The first question would be whether all of this can not be naturally achieved through market forces alone, in which a diversity of private media can service the different information needs of a large number of cultural, political and socio-economic groupings of the population.

The marketplace ideology, inspired by Lockean principles of natural law, would only tolerate government’s intervention in matters such as these on the grounds of market failure (or national security). This is typical of the US (whilst some other Western European countries are more tolerant of government intervention and more vigilant about private power).

Have market forces failed to establish media pluralism in South Africa? And if so, what role should government play? We would like to return to the first question in the next section.

To answer the second question, consideration of all the political angles which may underlie the principle becomes unavoidable. It is ironical that a media diversity and developmental policy (including deregulation and privatisation of the electronic media) has been desperately advocated in the mid – 1980’s by journalists, academics and critics of Government, exactly to break the then Government’s hold on the SABC, the Afrikaans press, the clampdown on the alternative media and the government’s then newly created watchdog the Directorate of Media Relations in 1987.

Today, grave concerns are expressed that the proposed MDDA will be just a front to create mouthpieces for government due to its perceived inability to take criticism. Unfortunately, recent statements from government spokespersons criticising "systematic hostility" of the media, ownership of which is concentrated in the hands of the few, add fuel to such concerns and perceptions. (Business Day, Beeld 7 February 2001.)

The point is that inasmuch as it is a dangerous situation that information is generated and communicated within a select few, it is as dangerous for any government to be part of that select few.

In answering the above question the following points deserve careful consideration:

-3-

The implications of this ongoing trend are twofold:

According to the position paper, media diversity cannot be left entirely to market forces. Even in a fully transformed society, it states, extra market measures will be required to reach poorer communities (section 2.4.2).

The AAA can accept this argument, only if it is convinced that sufficient consideration has been given to points 1 – 4 in the previous section. It is our contention that natural market developments and options are underestimated and underexplored at present.

Even if the AAA is convinced of the necessity of extra market intervention, such as the proposed MDDA, it would still question the following:

In view of the above, we believe consideration of the proposed funding of the MDDA via, amongst others, the MIT levy is premature at this stage. As already pointed out however, the AAA is in principle not opposed to a voluntary industry contribution to empower worthy industry initiatives to advance media pluralism. In fact, AAA members could only benefit from improved media penetration of diverse audiences.

In summary, the AAA agrees in principle with the intention to enhance media development and diversity, but is not convinced that natural market forces have been fully explored and acted upon. It is willing to give its 100% co-operation and contribution in developing viable market mechanisms to make media accessible to marginalised audiences. If extra market forces are proved unavoidable, the AAA will accept this. However, the extent of such intervention (as currently proposed), are seriously questioned, as well as the perceived overlap between the functions of the MDDA and other regulatory bodies with the same objectives. For these reasons, we believe consideration of the proposed financing of the MDDA is premature.

As an industry we are vigilant of government intervention, but are most willing to build a constructive partnership with Government on an issue as important as this. We remain committed to the realisation of the national agenda and are most willing to pursue all possible avenues in search of a solution to the challenge of offering diversified independent media to smaller and marginalised audiences.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

(On behalf of the AAA)

26 February 2001