The SABC - MEDIA MONITORING AFRICA1 What’s on TV? Media Monitoring Africa As the public broadcaster, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) remains a vital source of information

iWhat’s on TV? Media Monitoring Africa

The SABC:

What’s on TV and

how healthy is it?

December 2013

Media Monitoring Africa What’s on TV?ii

The SABC:What’s on TV and how healthy is it?

Written By: Thandi SmithEdited By: Kerry Harris

December, 2013

Funded By:

Copyrighted Media Monitoring Africa 2013

iiiWhat’s on TV? Media Monitoring Africa

Media Monitoring Africa What’s on TV?iv

Table of contents iiiTable of figures ii1. Introduction 12. How the items on the SABC television menu were examined 23. What we found on the SABC television menu 4 3.1. Overall diversity of the SABC television menu 4 3.2. Diversity of the SABC 1 menu 5 3.3. Diversity of the SABC 2 menu 6 3.4. Diversity of the SABC 3 menu 74. Diversity of local dishes on the menu of the SABC television channels 85. Repeated programming and local content on the SABC 106. Conclusion 11

Table of Contents

Figure 1: Overall diversity of the SABC menu 5Figure 2: Diversity of the SABC 1 menu 6Figure 3: Diversity of the SABC 2 menu 7Figure 4: Diversity of the SABC 3 menu 8Figure 5: Overall local content on the SABC menu 9Figure 6: Diversity of local dishes on all SABC television channels 10Figure 7: Repeated Programming 2012 Report 11Figure 8: Indicated repeats 11

Table of Figures

vWhat’s on TV? Media Monitoring Africa

1What’s on TV? Media Monitoring Africa

As the public broadcaster, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) remains a vital source of information and entertainment for a large majority of people in South Africa. It is therefore critical that the SABC gives viewers and listeners content that not only reflects the diverse nature of South Africa, but also supports South Africans to learn about and engage with the world and the range of issues impacting on them. In other words, as part of its democratic and democratising role the SABC ought to reflect and represent society in its diversity. Diversity of programming is not only essential to the country’s democracy but also to meeting the viewing needs of all SABC audiences.

The broadcast media consumed daily by the public is almost as important as the food the public consumes on a daily basis. Programmes on television can be as healthy (nutritious) or unhealthy (harmful) as the food we eat. Programmes can encourage and inform us of new ideas, values, beliefs and perspectives; and this is considered to be intellectually “healthy food”. Programming can also promote violence, gender and other stereotyping or general bad behaviour; and this is considered to be intellectually “unhealthy food”.

This report follows the Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) report released in August 2013 entitled “What’s on the Menu? Understanding the Diet of Programming for Citizens”1. This report uses the same food metaphor and methodology (see below), and builds on the results published in August. While the previous report examined the diversity of programming on all SABC television platforms, this report examines the overall quality of SABC programming. Two additional elements that are addressed are the issues of cloak content as well as the issue of repeats as both impact the ability to meet its mandate as well as it’s ability to offer diverse programming. The report uses the same rating system where the food metaphor allows the content of SABC programming to be viewed as a “TV Diet2 ”; and for TV consumption to be rated healthy or unhealthy (or a mix or range of the two). The report covers SABC television programming schedules during the period 1 August – 31 October 2013.

This report takes as its point of reference the Editorial Code set out in the SABC Mandate. According to Mandate of the SABC(as the public broadcaster) it is required to broadcast: quality, independent programmes that contribute to a plurality of opinions and an informed public; as well as a range of material that strikes a balance between programming of wide appeal and specialised programming that serves the needs of different audiences, among other things3.

1. Find the report here: http://www.mediamonitoringafrica.org/index.php/resources/entry/whats_on_the_menu_ understanding_the_diet_of_programming_for_citizens/.2. The ‘TV Diet’ is a game developed by Media Monitoring Africa which allows the user to determine their ‘TV Diet’ using this platform. The viewer logs onto the TV Diet and selects the channel and programme they are currently viewing. The viewer is also able to give feedback on the programme as well as see what their average viewing hours are. The TV Diet can be found at www.tvdiet.co.za.3. SABC Editorial Policies, 2004.

1. Introduction

Media Monitoring Africa What’s on TV?2

As noted previously, the SABC television programming reviewed for this report was aired between 1 August 2013 and 31 Ocotber 2013 on SABC 1, 2 and 3. This period was chosen as it followed on from the previous reporting period which MMA established in the first analysis report.

In order to associate programmes (items) with particular food items, we assumed that:

Based on these assumptions, MMA developed and used the following 10 criteria to examine the SABC “menu”:

• Knowing what is going on in the world around us is a good thing.

• Healthy programmes are those that open our minds. They are educational and take the form of public interest information, news, current affairs and documentaries.

• Less healthy programmes are those that simply entertain, such as some sitcoms and soaps.

• Programmes that contain and promote gratuitous violence, gender and other stereotypes (such as race or culture), or that promote gratuitous consumerism and materialism are bad.

• Local content is better than international content because it promotes the local production industry and local talent, keeps money within the local economy, and educates and informs viewers of their world.

• Multilingual programmes are better if they are locally produced.

• Seemingly harmless adult programmes and talks shows may be good for children, but they may also be harmful to children.

1. Programmes that reinforce negative sex stereotypes were classified as Deadly Poison.

2. Programmes with extreme violence were classified as Hard Drugs.

3. Reality shows like Survivor were classified as Alcohol or Cigarettes.

4. Programmes with mild violence and simulated violence were classified as Fried Fast Food.

5. Light adult entertainment such as some soaps, series and comedies were classified as Coffee or Coke.

2. How items on the SABC television menu were examined


The above criteria should be viewed as a continuum with Deadly Poison on the one end, Junk Food in the middle and Healthy Food on the other end.

In terms of methodology, MMA assigned a category to each television programme. It counted the duration (in hours) of all programmes within each category. This information was captured into a database from which MMA was able to determine how “healthy” or “unhealthy” the SABC television menu was. MMA also differentiated between locally produced and international programmes.. This methodology has its own limitations. Firstly, not all programmes were comprehensively described in the schedules hence it proved difficult to assign some programmes to specific categories. In such cases, the specific information needed for the programme was researched online and added manually. Secondly, the categories we used are subjective and unashamedly informed by MMA’s human rights bias. MMA welcomes feedback and interaction regarding this categorisation so that we are able to improve it going forward. Therefore, the findings that follow are based on this innovative way of analysing the diet fed to us by our public broadcaster.

6. Violent cartoons or cartoons that show violence as a means to resolve problems, and sports and lifestyle programmes were classified as Sweets or Ice Cream.

7. Harmless adult programmes and talk shows were classified as Grilled Fast Food.

8. Programmes that carry life lessons were classified as Pasta Dishes.

9. Edutainment, news and actualities were classified as Lean Chicken or Fish.

10. Educational programmes (documentaries and educational programming) were classified as Salads or Fruits.

Dea

dly

Poi

son

Junk

F

ood

Hea

lthy

Foo

d


This section details what consumers are offered on the SABC menu. It reveals that the majority of items on the SABC menu are Junk Foods. It also shows that the SABC 1 menu has healthier items to choose from than the SABC 2 or 3 menus. The section ends by uncovering the diversity of local and international content on the public broadcaster’s television menu. It shows that local content is far healthier than international content.

3.1. Overall diversity of the SABC television menuWith regard to the overall SABC television menu, it is important to point out that the public broadcaster does not offer programmes considered to be Deadly Poison (reinforcing negative gender stereotypes) on its menu. This is positive because deleterious television content will impede the public broadcaster from playing its role in fostering dialogue that will create cohesion and nation building; and as a result undermine its ability to maintain, promote and deepen the country’s democracy.

While SABC does not offer poisonous programming, we found that 56 percent of the programming is considered Junk Food (Coffee or Coke and Sweets or Ice Cream combined) This is type of programming ranges between light adult entertainment, cartoons, sport and lifestyle programmes. Put differently, if one was to watch SABC television for 24 consecutive hours,

more than 13 hours of that would be analogous to consuming Junk Food. These are all programmes considered entertaining but not educational, and certainly lacking in diversity. While it is necessary for the public broadcaster to flight such programmes, they serve purely an entertaining purpose. There must be a greater diversity of programmes that are informative, educational content and content which serves entertainment purposes only.

Interestingly, 15 percent of the broadcaster’s programming is really good, healthy food, from Lean Chicken or Fish (edutainment, news and actualities) to Salads and Fruits (documentaries). This means that there are at least some good, educational programmes to choose from.4

4. Figure 1, Overall SABC content rating amounts to 99% due to numbers rounded off in data

3. What we found on the SABC television menu

the public broadcaster does not offer programmes

considered to be Deadly Poison (reinforcing negative

gender stereotypes) on its menu.

...if one was to watch SABC television for 24 consecutive hours, more than 13 hours of that would be analogous to

consuming Junk Food.

15 percent of the broadcaster’s programming is really good,


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Deadly Poison

Hard Drugs

7lcohol or Cigare;es

Fried Fast Food

Coffee or Coke

Sweets or Ice Cream

Grilled Fast Food

Pasta Dishes

Lean Chicken or Fish

Salads or Fruits

0% 3%

6% 2%

34%

22%

4%

13% 11%

4%

Figure 1: Overall diversity of the SABC menu

3.2. Diversity of the SABC 1 menu When the schedules were examined according to each individual television channel the results were quite interesting. The findings indicate that that SABC 1 does not offer Deadly Poison; however, it is sad to note that SABC 1 does offer programming considered as Hard Drugs (extreme violence) – something new to its menu since the previous monitoring period.

However, almost half the menu is comprised of Junk Food with both Coffee or Coke and Sweets or Ice Cream at 23 percent each (i.e. 46%). This translates into 11 hours of Junk Food for every 24 hours of television. This, however, is less than the average of 13 hours recorded across all the SABC television channels. Therefore, in comparison to other channels, SABC 1’s menu is healthier for viewers as 45 percent of the items on the menu lean towards Healthy Food (ranging from Grilled Fast Food to Salads or Fruits). This means that audiences have healthier choices on SABC 1 than on SABC 2 or 3. Therefore,

audiences have a greater chance of being well-informed if they watch SABC 1 than SABC 2 or 3.

it is sad to note that SABC 1 does offer programming considered as Hard Drugs (extreme violence) – something new to its menu since the previous monitoring period.

...audiences have a greater chance of being well-informed if they

watch SABC 1 than SABC 2 or 3


Figure 2: Diversity of the SABC 1 menu

3.3. Diversity of the SABC 2 menu

Although SABC 2 does not have any Deadly Poison, and has only minimal Hard Drugs, Alcohol or Cigarettes (reality shows) and Fried Fast Food (mild or simulated violence) on its menu, over 55 percent of its menu is Junk Food. This translates into more than 13 hours of junk for every 24 hours of television, which is the average across all the television channels.

Unlike SABC 1, which has 45 percent of its items leaning towards Healthy Food, SABC 2 has 38 percent of its programmes leaning towards Healthy Food (ranging from Grilled Fast Food to Salads or Fruits). Although this figure is slightly lower than SABC 1, it does indicate healthy programming available to the viewer in the form of informative, enriching content.


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Deadly Poison

Hard Drugs

6lcohol or Cigare:es

Fried Fast Food

Coffee or Coke

Sweets or Ice Cream

Grilled Fast Food

Pasta Dishes


Salads or Fruits

0% 3%

4% 2%

23% 23%

4%

16% 18%

7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Deadly Poison

Hard Drugs

7lcohol or Cigare;es

Fried Fast Food

Coffee or Coke

Sweets or Ice Cream

Grilled Fast Food

Pasta Dishes


Salads or Fruits

0% 2%

5% 1%

34%

20%

4%

13%

18%

3%

SABC 2 has 38 percent of its programmes

leaning towards Healthy Food


3.4. Diversity of the SABC 3 menu

Of all the SABC television menus, the SABC 3 menu is the worst for the following reasons:

• Ithasthehighestproportionofitemsthatleantowardsthenegativeendofthemenuspectrum namely, Hard Drugs, Alcohol or Cigarettes and Fried Fast Food at 15 percent.

• IthasthehighestproportionofJunkFoodat67percent(CoffeeorCokeandSweetsorIce Cream combined) translating into more than 16 hours of Junk Food for every 24 hours of broadcasting.

• IthasthelowestpercentageofHealthyFoodat20percentcomparedwith45percentforSABC 1 and 38 percent for SABC 2 respectively.


What is clear across all three SABC channels is that there is a significant amount of Junk Food served up by the public broadcaster. It is important that the SABC strikes a much more positive balance between entertaining, informing and educating its audiences through its programming. Crucially, it should be much more concerned with impacting positively and making a sound contribution to realising access to information and knowledge within South Africa’s constitutional democracy.

When it comes to consuming media, MMA assumes that harmful content like violence and explicit sex can have negative and lasting effects on society, particularly children. It should be noted that the mandate to carry “Healthy Food” is an expensive one that requires money and a broad range of public programming as well as industry skills and experience. Each of the three major sources of funding (government, viewers, and corporate) comes with its own set of constraints. As a result organisations like the SOS: Support Public Broadcasting Coalition have made calls for alternative funding models for the public broadcaster.5

5. For more information on the funding models see the SOS vision document, accessible from http://www.supportpublicbroadcasting.co.za/images/uploads/SOS_vision_document_-_26_Jan_2012_.pdf.

0% 5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Deadly Poison

Hard Drugs

8lcohol or Cigare<es

Fried Fast Food

Coffee or Coke

Sweets or Ice Cream

Grilled Fast Food

Pasta Dishes


Salads or Fruits

0% 3%

8% 4%

44%

23%

5%

11%

1% 3%


4. Diversity of local dishes on the menu of the SABC television channels

As a rule, and as noted above, MMA considers local content for South Africans superior to international content. This bias is supported by the rating system developed by MMA for the TV Diet game where ones score will be slightly higher if more local content programming is consumed. Local content scores slightly higher than international content, even when the content is largely similar.

Therefore, MMA also sought to measure the diversity of local dishes on each SABC television channel menu. Figure 5 below shows that when all repeated programming is included in local content, it seems as though the SABC channels are meeting their local content requirements as stipulated in the regulations set by ICASA (SABC 1 and 2 at 55 percent and SABC 3 at 35%).

Figure 5: Overall local content on the SABC menu

SABC 1 SABC 2 SABC3

75% 56% 37%

However, according to monitoring conducted by MMA in 2012,63 when one excludes repeated programming, none of the SABC channels meets its local content requirements: these local content quotas, as set by ICASA are at 55 percent for SABC 1 and 2, and 35 percent for the commercial channel, SABC 3.

Figure 6 below shows diversity of local dishes on the menu of each SABC television channel. What is clear and in line with the above findings on the diversity of the SABC menus is that local dishes also consist primarily of Junk Food like Coffee or Coke and Sweets or Ice Cream. What is fascinating, though, is that if we consider the Healthier Foods from Grilled Fast Food through to Salads or Fruits, we notice that there are proportionally more local Healthy dishes on SABC 1 and SABC 2 than there are on SABC 3.

Put differently, if one was to consume local content only on SABC 1 for 24 continuous hours, nearly eight hours of local content programming would be Junk Food, over 9 hours would be Healthier Food, and the remainder would consist of the dangerous foods of Alcohol or Cigarettes and Fried Fast Food. On SABC 3, however, over seven hours of local content programming would be Junk Food, about two hours would be Healthier Food, and one hour would consist of dangerous foods. If we examine SABC 2, it is clear that the findings range between SABC 1 and SABC 3. It is also interesting to note that SABC 2 has the most amount of programming considered “Sweets and Ice Cream” at 22 percent compared to that of SABC 1 and 3 at 18 percent. This supports previous findings that the majority of SABC programming may be considered Junk Food. Consumers of SABC content are not being offered a nutritious and fulsome TV Diet.

6. MMA, Lack of Diversity (Repeat), 2012. Available from: http://www.mediamonitoringafrica.org/index.php/resources/entry/lack_of_diversity_repeat_analysis_of_sabc_news_and_programming/


Figure 6: Diversity of local dishes on all SABC television channels

In line with MMA’s assumption that local programming is better than international programming, we observed that almost half of the local dishes across all SABC television menus lean towards Healthy Foods (a combination of Grilled Fast Food, Pasta Dishes, Lean Chicken or Fish, and Salads or Fruits). The SABC should therefore encourage local dishes as they tend to be a healthier option for local programming.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Deadly Poison

Hard Drugs

Alcohol or Cigare:es

Fried Fast Food

Coffee or Coke

Sweets or Ice Cream

Grilled Fast Food

Pasta Dishes

Lean Chicken or

Fish

Salads or Fruits

0% 0%

2% 1%

15%

18%

4%

15%

13%

8%

0% 0%

3%

0%

11%

22%

3%

9%

3% 4%

0% 0% 0% 0%

11%

18%

4%

1% 0%

3%

SABC 1

SABC 2

SABC 3

The SABC should therefore encourage local dishes as they

tend to be a healthier option for local programming.

Local Programming


When considering the local content quotas of the SABC, MMA cannot ignore the significance of repeated programming. Rebroadcasts of old series such as MacGyver are not considered repeats by themselves. A repeat is considered an original programme broadcast again during the same monitoring week. Nevertheless, these do not constitute new content. There are a number of programmes which are repeated across all SABC channels. Normally, these repeats are indicated on the television schedule, for example in the Programme Title (“R”) or something similar. MMA’s report74 in 2012 examined the repeated local content programming and found that a large percentage of local programming was repeated. This is significant because it belies the fact that the SABC is not meeting its local content requirements across all stations.

Figure 7: Repeated Programming 2012 Report

Repeats Total Time SABC1 SABC2 SABC3

Yes 21% 28% 21% 15%

No 79% 72% 79% 85%

For the purposes of this report, repeated programming was noted separately. Of particular interest is that, when looking at the three different menus dished up by the three different stations, quite different results were found.

According to the SABC online schedules, there are almost no repeated programming. When these schedules are compared to two printed schedules (The Citizen and Sowetan newspapers), different information is forthcoming. The schedules were examined between 4 and 10 November 2013.

Figure 8: Indicated repeats

Repeats SABC1 SABC2 SABC3

Sowetan 0% 0% 0%

Citizen 18% 10% 14%

SABC Online 1% 0% 2%

According to The Citizen newspaper, 18 percent of broadcasting time is dedicated to 7. MMA, Lack of Diversity (Repeat), 2012. Available from: http://www.mediamonitoringafrica.org/index.php/resources/

entry/lack_of_diversity_repeat_analysis_of_sabc_news_and_programming/.

5. Repeated programming and local content on the SABC


repeated programming on SABC 1, 10 percent on SABC 2 and 14 percent on SABC 3. The accuracy of this finding is difficult to verify since the three different schedules produced three different results. The fact that the schedule from SABC online is the schedule audiences rely on for accurate information since it is published on the website is concerning as clearly it is very inaccurate. This points to the problem of lack of transparency within the SABC and the publication of its programming schedules.

This report has shown that although the public broadcaster does not offer outright Deadly Poison food on its television menu, the majority of the items on the menu constitute Junk Food, and only six percent is Healthy programming.

The high levels of Junk Food could be attributed to the pursuit of advertiser funded programming and product placement, as well as limited resources which result in a cutting back of local content production. Be that as it may, the SABC needs a far healthier balance between pure entertainment and content that is educational and informative, and contributes to the social fabric of our society, its values, and its commitment to Constitutional democracy. If the public broadcaster can strike a better balance, audiences are more likely to be engaged, meaningful participants in their own lives and in the development of a better society for all.

It is also concerning to note that there are inaccurate scheduling published in newspapers and on the SABC website. This issue needs to be addressed particularly within the context of the SABC editorial policy review. There needs to be transparency within the scheduling of SABC programming as well as which content is being repeated.

MMA hopes that the findings in this report will not only inspire the SABC to offer more healthy and diverse items on its television menu, but also encourage audiences to think about the television they watch.For audiences (i.e. the general public), MMA encourages all viewers to sign up to the “TV Diet” tool – an easy, three step online tool which enables two important things:

1. Users can note their personal TV Diet, and average television watching time. This will enable users to understand whether they are consuming healthy and nutritious content, or more dangerous or even poisonous content.

2. Uers can give feedback to MMA on their television viewing. This will add to the MMA data base, and strengthen the depth and range of monitoring undertaken.

6. Conclusion

The TV Diet tool is accessible at:

www.tvdiet.co.za


www.mediamonitoringafrica.org(011) 788 1278

CoordinatorThandi Smith: [email protected]

MMA DirectorWilliam Bird: [email protected]

Funded by:

Documents

The SABC - MEDIA MONITORING AFRICA1 What’s on TV? Media Monitoring Africa As the public broadcaster, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) remains a vital source of information