SABC must be privatised, says DA

[DreamKing]

They will never privatize. The "speaker box" of the ANC will be gone.

let sell all shares to anc .......

they can do whatever they want to .......

 

[wrathex]

Yes, governments are not business's, the SABC needs professional management that will ensure that quality programs are produced, so that advertising revenues keep flowing, at this rate and with the competition from the internet, the SABC should either shutdown as a failure or start operating as a professional institution.

The govenment will not want to lose control of such a vital nation informing and indoctrination tool.

Who here watches SABC ?

It's not bookmarked as a favourite on my remote, on rare occasions though I tune in just for the weather after the news.

I've never watched soaps, so I have no clue about those.

 

[McSack]

What an ignorant comment from the DA. Comparing an organisation which broadcasts TWO channels, to an organisation which operates 4 channels and at least 18 radio stations.

So eTV has less revenue opportunity, get's no "subscription" income and manages to turn a profit.
Multichoice broadcasts (?plenty?) channels, gets voluntary subscriptions and is aguably the holy cash cow of naspers

SABC has ample revenue opportunities and gets legislated, obligatory subscriptions and is millions of rhondt in debt.
C'mon dude, the SABC is an f-up of note - for no other reason than mismanagement and incompetence

 

[noxibox]

Privatisation is no quick fix nor does being a private company prevent the problems like overpaid incompetent or self-serving management.

If etv, with no TV licence, can do it then there is something wrong with the SABC.

eTV is great, if you like watching advertising interspersed with program breaks.

 

[phiber]

You cannot privatise our ONLY PUBLIC broadcaster. We will end up with companies who do not have the publics needs in interest and may just end up getting some not so true news.

 

[McSack]

Privatisation is no quick fix nor does being a private company prevent the problems like overpaid incompetent or self-serving management.
.

100% . However, at least as a private company SABC would be out of business in short order and the taxpayer wouldn't be burdened with propping up said incompetent, self-serving management

eTV is great, if you like watching advertising interspersed with program breaks.

too true, although I have noticed a the same irritating trend on monochoice during any prime time programming (I'm sure the same goes for SABC I guess, although where they would find companies willing to pay for advertising time is beyond me )

 

[McSack]

You cannot privatise our ONLY PUBLIC broadcaster. We will end up with companies who do not have the publics needs in interest and may just end up getting some not so true news.

Jaysus wept !!

The Super ANC Bull***** Channel?
U seriaass?

 

[sox63]

So eTV has less revenue opportunity, get's no "subscription" income and manages to turn a profit.
Multichoice broadcasts (?plenty?) channels, gets voluntary subscriptions and is aguably the holy cash cow of naspers

SABC has ample revenue opportunities and gets legislated, obligatory subscriptions and is millions of rhondt in debt.
C'mon dude, the SABC is an f-up of note - for no other reason than mismanagement and incompetence

I was merely putting the comparison into perspective. You can look into the financials of Etv, if they are available, to see what I'm talking about.

There is no doubt the SABC management has been to blame for where it is. In the past the bad management was covered up by booming ad revenue, and now with the drop in ad revenue becuase of the recession and loss of the PSL rights, we now have a clear view of the financial position.

IMO, the SABC will go down in history as an organisation whose prudent financial management in good times COULD have spared them what they are currently going through.

 

[Kosmik]

Jaysus wept !!

The Super ANC Bull***** Channel?
U seriaass?

Aye.

 

[HapticSimian]

The SABC’s competition, etv, had been able to make a profit out of broadcasting without benefiting from licence fees and having to face the same regulations as the SABC regarding local content and languages.

Unless I'm mistaken (if I am, please correct me) this is a bit of a misrepresentation by the DA. As public broadcaster the SABC is required by law to adhere to certain guidelines relating to local content, serving programming in a multitude of official languages and a plethora of other aspects. As a commercial entity, etv isn't. They ARE however both required to adhere to stipulations of the Electronic Communications Act regarding impartial reporting, programming depicting violence, strong language, explicit material etc.

Given South Africa's demographics, we cannot NOT have a public broadcaster. South Africa is not a country of (comparatively) well-off, English-speaking, well educated people who can afford to effectively buy the content we want & still be able to spend time on teh Interwebz bemoaning the state of affairs. We are the minority. The only way to give the masses access to what they are 'entitled' to, is through a quasi-government institution.

The SABC's position as government institution isn't the cause of its problems. Simple mismanagement and self-enrichment, the African way after all, is to blame. Given the cultural propensity to (mis)manage institutions such as the SABC I can't propose a solution, but I don't think privatising it is the silver bullet it is made out to be.

 

[DreamKing]

Unless I'm mistaken (if I am, please correct me) this is a bit of a misrepresentation by the DA. As public broadcaster the SABC is required by law to adhere to certain guidelines relating to local content, serving programming in a multitude of official languages and a plethora of other aspects. As a commercial entity, etv isn't. They ARE however both required to adhere to stipulations of the Electronic Communications Act regarding impartial reporting, programming depicting violence, strong language, explicit material etc.

Given South Africa's demographics, we cannot NOT have a public broadcaster. South Africa is not a country of (comparatively) well-off, English-speaking, well educated people who can afford to effectively buy the content we want & still be able to spend time on teh Interwebz bemoaning the state of affairs. We are the minority. The only way to give the masses access to what they are 'entitled' to, is through a quasi-government institution.
The SABC's position as government institution isn't the cause of its problems. Simple mismanagement and self-enrichment, the African way after all, is to blame. Given the cultural propensity to (mis)manage institutions such as the SABC I can't propose a solution, but I don't think privatising it is the silver bullet it is made out to be.

Don't deny, you are working with SABC........ you are so defensive about every SABC's stuffs. Catch you!

privatised <> NOT a public broadcaster

SABC can be a private company but still free on air to the public.
example: etv and many many more countries .............

air should be free to the public ....
any company should have rights to set up (operate) a tv station without penalties.

tv licence is an unfair business practise and it is not a level playing field for all participates.

then.... SABC have to privatise and tv licence have to scrap ....

that will create more jobs to the public and we have a healthy tv industry.

 

[HapticSimian]

Don't deny, you are working with SABC........ you are so defensive about every SABC's stuffs. Catch you!

privatised <> NOT a public broadcaster

SABC can be a private company but still free on air to the public.
example: etv and many many more countries .............

air should be free to the public ....
any company should have rights to set up (operate) a tv station without penalties.

tv licence is an unfair business practise and it is not a level playing field for all participates.

then.... SABC have to privatise and tv licence have to scrap ....

that will create more jobs to the public and we have a healthy tv industry.

As I have stated on this forum my father is a veteran of the SABC. Although well past retirement age he is still employed on contractual basis because the monkeys that run the show would be in even deeper excrement without the expertise and experience of people like him. Thus, through being a product of my upbringing, I am interested in the Auckland Park Soap Opera.

As for the rest of your reply, you clearly either didn't read my post or you completely misconstrued my intentions. There isn't anything in it 'defending' the SABC. I posed a question as to the validity of the DA's statement, complimented by my understanding of why a public broadcaster is necessary in a local context...

A multitude of free-to-air commercial stations simply isn't feasible in SA as the majority of our populace is economically inactive. Any commercial station would put its own interests first, thus targeting programming at segments of the market where they expect to see the best returns for their advertisers. This would leave the masses out in the cold. It's not simply about subscription services.

If you don't have anything constructive to add, rather refrain from expending the energy.

 

[DreamKing]

A multitude of free-to-air commercial stations simply isn't feasible in SA as the majority of our populace is economically inactive. Any commercial station would put its own interests first, thus targeting programming at segments of the market where they expect to see the best returns for their advertisers. This would leave the masses out in the cold. It's not simply about subscription services.

You agreed: "Any commercial station would put its own interests first, thus targeting programming at segments of the market where they expect to see the best returns for their advertisers."

What kinds of programs will attract what kinds of viewers, correct?

depends on who are advertisers' audiences, advertisers will find programs to attract their audiences. I promise you, that will be more local contents and other you think is "unprofitable" programs put on tv than sabc doing now.

no matter how "boring" the program is but still got certain viewers like to "enjoy". I don't think it is your responsibility to take care of SABC and protect sabc's interests rather than public's interests.

The public want to have more channels free on air, more different programs and no tv licence, and advertisers like to choose their audiences by choosing different tv stations.

problem solving> how to make broadcaster to broadcast "guaranteed no viewers programs"?

answer> when the government award a tv channel to the company, the condition is the channel should have how many hours (per week) / (per which period) the channel must broadcast government's programs. FREE OF CHARGE!
For example: mon - fri 1600 - 2300 period, the channel must broadcast at least 30 mins of government's programs / advertising programs. (or in what language etc)

constructive?

 

[HapticSimian]

*snip*
constructive?

A little more than your previous post, yes, thank you...

I still see a bit of a vicious circle, though. What's the old saying - something like 20% of the people have 80% of the money... can't recall what fractions are normally used.

By the system you propose the commercial stations would understandably target their programming at the better-off minority. If they are now forced by legislation to provide programming targeted at the 'poor' 80% you'll have an exodus of advertisers as any money spent on advertising during these times would not yield positive returns.

So, now you NEED to generate local (because you've had it legislated) content without the means to finance it. How else does the government finance something which is mandated by law but not commercially viable? Through tax... So, best case scenario - you've taken away the current standalone tv license as a source of income & probably just increased tax paid on some other arbitrary article in order to finance your legally mandated local content.

My original question still stands... I don't believe that etv fall under the same legal constraints as the SABC. If I'm right then a large part of the argument in THIS thread is moot. If I'm wrong, I would like to know...

And lastly, I am neither pro- nor anti-SABC in principle. I just tend to have a fairly pragmatic approach to things.

EDIT

Another quick point you MIGHT be missing: Actually producing any local content, let alone anything of measurable quality (7de Laan is the best we can do?) is extremely expensive. Thinking back to an arb fact my dad imparted to me somewhere around 15 years ago, if I recall the SABC could buy a full season of drivel such as 'Days of our Lives' for the cost of a single locally produced episode. Any locally produced programming, because of its implied indigenous content, would be a non-issue to the rest of the world. So, you cannot offset costs by offering the programming for sale internationally, whereas just about the entire world consumes programming produced in the English-speaking West.

Added to this is simple economy of scale. The 'States have their huuuuuge numbers of local free-to-air stations because the population is both big & rich enough to support it. Ours isnt...

 

[Voicy]

Privatisation is no quick fix nor does being a private company prevent the problems like overpaid incompetent or self-serving management.


eTV is great, if you like watching advertising interspersed with program breaks.

DSTV also has adds between every single program...and lots of it.

The only difference is ETV putting ads in movies, which is a bit ghei.

 

[DreamKing]

By the system you propose the commercial stations would understandably target their programming at the better-off minority. If they are now forced by legislation to provide programming targeted at the 'poor' 80% you'll have an exodus of advertisers as any money spent on advertising during these times would not yield positive returns.

no one said "must provide 80% of airtime for governemt's programs"

if we have 10 channels, each channel provide 30 mins program each night, we have 6 hours of programs "free on air" a night.

(now we have 4, at least we have 2 hours program.)

So, now you NEED to generate local (because you've had it legislated) content without the means to finance it. How else does the government finance something which is mandated by law but not commercially viable? Through tax... So, best case scenario - you've taken away the current standalone tv license as a source of income & probably just increased tax paid on some other arbitrary article in order to finance your legally mandated local content.

government program, funded by government...... fair enough, what's wrong?

remainder: government program <> (not equal to) local contents programs

a production company (local contents production) may contract with a local station ......
may be funded by governemt.......
may be funded by charity.......
may be funded by sponsors.......

why must "tv licence"?

As I mentioned before: certain viewers may enjoy "local content", that is no way the local contents program must be part of the "government program".

My original question still stands... I don't believe that etv fall under the same legal constraints as the SABC. If I'm right then a large part of the argument in THIS thread is moot. If I'm wrong, I would like to know...

nothing to say............

And lastly, I am neither pro- nor anti-SABC in principle. I just tend to have a fairly pragmatic approach to things.

I am anti tv licence, sorry.

EDIT

Another quick point you MIGHT be missing: Actually producing any local content, let alone anything of measurable quality (7de Laan is the best we can do?) is extremely expensive. Thinking back to an arb fact my dad imparted to me somewhere around 15 years ago, if I recall the SABC could buy a full season of drivel such as 'Days of our Lives' for the cost of a single locally produced episode. Any locally produced programming, because of its implied indigenous content, would be a non-issue to the rest of the world. So, you cannot offset costs by offering the programming for sale internationally, whereas just about the entire world consumes programming produced in the English-speaking West.

Added to this is simple economy of scale. The 'States have their huuuuuge numbers of local free-to-air stations because the population is both big & rich enough to support it. Ours isnt...

I don't miss this point, but in abstraction.
Details? find the answer as above...............

 

[apogeeza]

DSTV also has adds between every single program...and lots of it.

The only difference is ETV putting ads in movies, which is a bit ghei.

even more ghei is them throwing in such a barrage of sex SMS ads, tryna get me to spend money, while I'm trying to save money. (by not buying porn DVD's, because I'm watching soft-porn on e-tv instead ...) Really. Someone needs to birtch-slap them.

 

[Takkies]

This thing belongs to us (the people) and it is an asset. We had better make dead sure that we're getting our money's worth for it, and that it's not simply bought up by the ANC for propaganda purposes.

Im trying to see how I can agree with you. They are not an asset in any way shape or form. (and by the way they are insolvent)

 

[Takkies]

You cannot privatise our ONLY PUBLIC broadcaster. We will end up with companies who do not have the publics needs in interest and may just end up getting some not so true news.

The SABC does NOT provide an objective view. They are the mouthpiece of the ANC.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

 

[Takkies]

Unless I'm mistaken (if I am, please correct me) this is a bit of a misrepresentation by the DA. As public broadcaster the SABC is required by law to adhere to certain guidelines relating to local content, serving programming in a multitude of official languages and a plethora of other aspects. As a commercial entity, etv isn't. They ARE however both required to adhere to stipulations of the Electronic Communications Act regarding impartial reporting, programming depicting violence, strong language, explicit material etc.

Given South Africa's demographics, we cannot NOT have a public broadcaster. South Africa is not a country of (comparatively) well-off, English-speaking, well educated people who can afford to effectively buy the content we want & still be able to spend time on teh Interwebz bemoaning the state of affairs. We are the minority. The only way to give the masses access to what they are 'entitled' to, is through a quasi-government institution.

The SABC's position as government institution isn't the cause of its problems. Simple mismanagement and self-enrichment, the African way after all, is to blame. Given the cultural propensity to (mis)manage institutions such as the SABC I can't propose a solution, but I don't think privatising it is the silver bullet it is made out to be.

Yeah! are right. It should just be disolved!