Press regulation in South Africa and its implications for press freedom

Sibongile Sindane

doi:10.18820/24150525/comm.v23.10

Abstract

Using the critical political economy of the media theory (CPEM), this article analyses press regulation in South Africa. The data was collected from statutory documents, which inform press regulation in the country, and was analysed using inductive thematic content analysis. Four themes emerged, namely from self-regulation to independent co-regulation, the communal approach, independent co-regulation, and citizenship. The findings indicate that press regulation in South Africa has adopted a communal approach, which implies that press regulation attempts to include the public. Although independent co-regulation is between the media and the public, and it is supposed to be independent from the government, this does not make it much different from the previous structureof self-regulation.

Highlights

South Africa’s approach to press regulation has progressed from self-regulation in 2007 to independent co-regulation in 2012, when the Press Council of South Africa (PCSA) adopted the recommendations of the Press Freedom Commission (PFC) following a review of the PCSA
Between 2002 and 2013 the ANC proposed a number of controversial ideas about press freedom, including a Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT 2010) and the Protection of State Information Bill (POSIB, or “Secrecy Bill”)
critical political economy of the media theory (CPEM) points to the distortions and inequalities of the market system and argues that the deficiencies can only be rectified by public intervention (Golding & Murdock 2005: 65)

Summary

Introduction

South Africa’s approach to press regulation has progressed from self-regulation in 2007 to independent co-regulation in 2012, when the Press Council of South Africa (PCSA) adopted the recommendations of the Press Freedom Commission (PFC) following a review of the PCSA. Between 2002 and 2013 the ANC proposed a number of controversial ideas about press freedom, including a Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT 2010) and the Protection of State Information Bill (POSIB, or “Secrecy Bill”). Since 2010, academic debates about press regulation and press freedom emerged contesting the ANC’s ideas on press freedom, and supporting self-regulation (Berger 2010; Daniels 2011; Duncan 2014). Duncan (2009) and Daniels (2011: 11, 233) argued that the MAT was not the answer to regulating the media, and that self-regulation of the press, independent from government intervention, was a better alternative. Since 2010, academic debates about press regulation and press freedom emerged contesting the ANC’s ideas on press freedom, and supporting self-regulation (Berger 2010; Daniels 2011; Duncan 2014). Duncan (2009) and Daniels (2011: 11, 233) argued that the MAT was not the answer to regulating the media, and that self-regulation of the press, independent from government intervention, was a better alternative. Duncan (2009) and Daniels (2011) both considered

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion