MultiChoice foreign ownership cause for Caxton complaint

Vrotappel

Bulls fan
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
24,634
"A foreigner may not indirectly or directly exercise control over a commercial broadcasting licensee or have a financial interest or an interest either in voting shares or paid up capital in a commercial broadcasting licensee, exceeding 20% . Not more than 20% of the directors of a commercial broadcasting licensee may be foreigners."

How do one create jobs in an economy with regarded legislation like this?
 

who.is.michael

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
2,929
...if you are going to make stupid laws, you have to stupidly enforce them, even if your regulatory organisation is less than capable - time to get rid of BEE, it is not in the interest of South African's.
 

homeless

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
21
I am not a fan of either party, but assuming what Caxton says is correct, Naspers has the responsibility to ensure compliance.
 

bleh69

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
539
How about Caxton requests of the Reserve Bank (A private Entity) to disclose ITS shareholding. Oh. sorry. People that print money instead of news are exempt...
 

Johand

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
1,963
How do one create jobs in an economy with regarded legislation like this?

I think the situation is more complex than this. The number one reason you want to restrict ownership of major broadcasters is to prevent undue outside influence. Now your first reaction would be "Does it matter?". But I suppose in your mind you have a Western foreign owner - which does not need to be the case. What would your reaction be if the Chinese government controls pay TV in South Africa. Or if Muammar al-Gaddafi bought all the major news papers in South Africa? Would you be happy if governments in the Middle East buys NASPERS and slowly changes programming to suit their ideologies?

The media has a very important role to play in any democracy. That is why you need laws to prevent economic forces subverting it. That is why people need to oppose the "Protection of Information Act".
 

GingerBeer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
293
How do one create jobs in an economy with regarded legislation like this?

The media is a powerful influence.
They don't want foreign people trying
to sway votes in elections & so on.

Quite sensible actually.
 

Tick

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
664
What would your reaction be if the Chinese government controls pay TV in South Africa. Or if Muammar al-Gaddafi bought all the major news papers in South Africa? Would you be happy if governments in the Middle East buys NASPERS and slowly changes programming to suit their ideologies?

I would only be worried if government was blocking a free market in the first place. If Gaddafi bought all our papers and changed them to his ideologies, a hundred more new independently owned ones would spring up overnight to serve the actual news interests of SAns ... YAWN, how scary, not. Heck, most SAns have regular access to myriad online news media sources these days. I can pop online and read and watch all manner of international news and news channels. There isn't a problem here.


The media has a very important role to play in any democracy. That is why you need laws to prevent economic forces subverting it.

Lol.. right. Governments will always tell you about some fake scary villain and why they need more power to hold back fake-scary-villain, looks like you bought it hook line and sinker.
 

Tick

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
664

Murmaider

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
984
Caxton is like that annoying, jealous kid who always runs to the teacher and tells on the other kids because no one wants to play with them or be their friends...
 

redheadfan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
354
...if you are going to make stupid laws, you have to stupidly enforce them, even if your regulatory organisation is less than capable - time to get rid of BEE, it is not in the interest of South African's.

lmao!

Exactly what I was going to say!
 

Vrotappel

Bulls fan
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
24,634
I think the situation is more complex than this. The number one reason you want to restrict ownership of major broadcasters is to prevent undue outside influence. Now your first reaction would be "Does it matter?". But I suppose in your mind you have a Western foreign owner - which does not need to be the case. What would your reaction be if the Chinese government controls pay TV in South Africa. Or if Muammar al-Gaddafi bought all the major news papers in South Africa? Would you be happy if governments in the Middle East buys NASPERS and slowly changes programming to suit their ideologies?

The media has a very important role to play in any democracy. That is why you need laws to prevent economic forces subverting it. That is why people need to oppose the "Protection of Information Act".

The propaganda channel is already controlled by the national broadcaster. Media is in it to make money. They are not going to make money if they push political ideologies onto those that are not interested.

This country needs investment to grow.

We need to grow by 7% a year in order to start reducing unemployment. We will not get this right with retarded legislation.
 

Key

Active Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Messages
85
Take them down.... Rules were ignored to gain investor funding..... And someone noticed... oops
 
Top