The Size Issue

2011-11-19T14:03:00.000+02:00

A NEW global multimedia megacorporation is determining the future of communications on Planet Earth. From cradle to grave, chances are your life is already affected and controlled by Channel Life.

If you attend Damelyn Collage or City Varsity, buy tickets via Computicket or access broadband with MWeb, your life has been inextricably altered by Channel Life.

Whether you surf Facebook, play with Mixit (until recently 100% owned by Naspers) , read ZigZag or Saltwater Girl or any one of 60 magazine titles, or watch the plethora of Multichoice Television programmes on DSTV via a vast array of platforms owned ultimately by insurance giant Sanlam you may knowingly or unknowingly be a part of the Channel Life experience.

If Channel Life did not exist, then someone would have had a good cause to create the term to express the way humanity is increasingly becoming interconnected through communications technology. Problem though, Channel Life does exist and it describes a lot more than a shareholder stake in a complex holding structure behind today’s networked mega-corporation.

It was not always this way. South Africa until fairly recently was a rather insular and isolated country. As a British Colony and Union prior to Independence, its press was predominately Liberal and English and except for one or two newspapers from the Transvaal, local publishing was for the most part unexceptional.

On May 12, 1915 a small company by the name of Naspers was incorporated under the laws of the then Union of South Africa as a public limited liability company. Naspers, short for Nationale Pers or National Press, reflected the dominant concerns behind Afrikaner Nationalism which had endured defeat during the Anglo-Boer war, a war which is now known as the South African War.

Along with the rise of the Apartheid state, Naspers rapidly became associated with political factions agitating for independence from Britain, and a Republic divided along strict racial lines where segregation into distinct race groups would be enforced by laws rather than mere societal norms and where the reigns of power would be in the hands of a secret society which acted independently of the ruling party.

In 1914 the republican militarist, J.B.M. Hertzog had formed the National Party. The following year Naspers was formed by Hertzog along with a daily newspaper, De Burger, later known as Die Burger. A vainglorious and zealous theologian by the name of D F Malan was persuaded to become editor. Malan accepted the post only after relinquishing his position as a minister in the conservative Dutch Reformed Church.

A Cape branch of Hertzog's National Party had been formed the same year and Malan, leveraging his position as editor and with the backing of the Afrikaans media was not surprisingly, elected as its provincial leader. Despite the objections of a small minority within the Afrikaner establishment who believed “the dominee” unfit to lead, Malan was elected to Parliament three years later in 1918, the same year a secret society known as the Afrikaner Broederbond, was formed, ostensibly to protect Afrikaner interests.

Thus with the full support of the corporation, and the Broederbond, the National Party was catapulted into power in 1924, for a brief moment under the leadership of Hertzog, where Malan, still editor, and the Silvio Berlusconi of his day, was given the post of Minister of the Interior, Education and Public Health, a position which he held until 1933.

In the South Africa of the 1930s white consensus politics prevailed, the United Party was thus formed out of the merger between Hertzog's National Party and the rival South African Party of Jan Smuts. According to historians Malan strongly opposed the merger however, and he and 19 other MPs defected to form the Gesuiwerde Nationale Party or 'Purified National Party”, which Malan led for the next fourteen years as part of the all-white opposition.

Malan was not surprisingly vehemently opposed to South Africa's participation in World War II, and openly sympathised with Nazism and Hitler’s brownshirts. Since the allies and the British were immensely unpopular amongst the Afrikaner, it stood to reason that much would be gained from beating the drum of fascism and Afrikaner nationalism.

This directly led to a split in the ruling party and dramatically increased Malan's popularity amongst disgruntled whites with the result that he was able to defeat Smuts and the United Party in the election of 1948 in what must surely rate as one of the worst moments in South African history.

Without the racist machinations of D. F. Malan who wished to remove those known, as “coloureds” (in the peculiar parlance of South Africa's race system) from the voters roll while relegating “black” South Africans to the status of foreigners, and bolstered by the enthusiastic support of the Naspers corporation, the foundation stone for apartheid would never have been laid.

More likely, as with so many British colonies and protectorates that achieved democratic independence after World War Two, African nationalism would have simply taken its natural course. The white minority would have been forced to accept the “Winds of Change” which were blowing over the continent.

Instead what occurred was a travesty of justice as a country which had committed soldiers in the cause of freedom, now committed itself to actively enslaving its own countrymen.

The outcome of D F Malan's Naspers-backed tinkering with the political system resulted in what we now know as a crime against humanity – the institutionalisation of racial segregation in the form of apartheid, along with job reservation for whites, which under the regime of Malan and subsequent National Party leaders was given the full force of law.

Although parallels existed in the experience of segregation in the USA – the Southern States had literally fought a civil war to defend slavery and class privilege and lost -- the civil rights movement on the continent had consigned segregation on the basis of race and skin-colour to the rubbish heap. Instead while Martin Luther King was giving his famous “I have a dream” speech, and America was turning its back on segregation, South Africa was embracing a system of grand apartheid which denied blacks full citizenship and consigned objectors to what were known as bantustans, under the evil doctoring of another broederbonder with media ties by the name of Hendrik Verwoerd.

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="256" caption="D F Malan & H F Verwoerd"][/caption]

A Dutch immigrant, Verwoerd was a graduate in psychology from the Universities of Hamburg, Berlin and Leipzig where he had absorbed the racist theories of eugenics which underlined the apartheid science of the day and which now informed his masterplan for the subjugation of those deemed to be of an “inferior” race. In 1927 Verwoerd was given the post of Professor of Applied Psychology at the University of Stellebosch before becoming the editor of Die Transvaler, a title later purchased by Naspers.

Clearly, this is not the history channel of champions that we see at Multichoice today. The online historical record of Naspers conveyed by its powerful corporate presence on the web is rather a marvel of reinvention. Corporate heroes such as Koos Bekker, Hein Brand and Ton Vosloo are now the stuff of the capitalist rainbow nation whose pot of gold is touted by the ruling ANC as the saviour of the people. How is such an oversight and whitewash of the history of apartheid and the civil rights movement possible?

Remarkable though it may seem, the entire period prior to PW Botha's tricameral parliament has been redacted on Naspers’ branded Media24 website into a few cursory sentences, which appear to give the authenticity and authorship of history , but instead relegate the role of the corporation and its active participation in the system of apartheid to a quaint footnote. The role of Malan, his successor Piet Cillie and business partner Hendrik Verwoerd have been quietly forgotten.

If one takes the trouble to discover the truth behind the Naspers empire, its holding company Sanlam, the many front companies set up along the way, amidst the decay of memory and the passage of time, a different story emerges. A story of greed, prejudice, hatred and racial oppression.

A corporation which massively benefited from the apartheid system and which in many respects was inseparable from the National Party and the race-based system created by D F Malan and those who succeeded him, and which even to this day, refuses to acknowledge any responsibility for wrong-doing.

Naspers for example, did not participate in the media hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and failed to submit anything more than a copy of Oor Grense Heen, the “official” history of Naspers.

Unlike several other South Africa media companies, which participated in these hearings, Naspers refused to support the commission and instead chose to go it alone, essentially believing in its own ability to convince others of the moral rectitude of its position and in the power of a rebranding exercise. Naspers’ media division is now known as Media24 and is tasked with providing a façade of reconciliation which speaks to an emerging black comprador class which can be divided and ruled so that white privilege may be secured via proxy.

Naspers, as we will find out, has absolutely nothing to do with actual media. Rather it is in turn, a front company for a complex investment scheme, effectively known as Channel Life and a secret society called the Broederbond (not the Afrikanerbond) which has links to other secret societies like the Bilderbergers and Freemasons around the world.

Popular politicians such as Vallie Moosa and party apparatchiks like Maria Ramos (wife of Trevor Manual) hold stakes in the holding company which rules behind the scenes via secrecy, propaganda and deception, intelligent double-speak in which two completely separate messages compete for our attention.

On the one hand we are told to believe in the moral virtues of truth and reconciliation without the company coming clean about apartheid or telling the truth, on the other, the historical record created by the National Party and the Broederbond is allowed to go unchallenged while reconciliation (read limited Black Economic Empowerment) is turned into a multitude of increasingly complex local share-schemes and dilution of share capital. The new media conglomerate routinely shifts investment back and forth, from South Africa and abroad, with interest in its core business in the New World Order carefully masked by local share schemes.

Naspers is now duel-listed on the JSE and the London Stock Exchange. In essence two holding companies, with two balance sheets. The supposed “secondary” London listing is the result of the primary consolidation of several listings made via NAFTA deals representing the “American Deposit Receipt” ownership in the “shares of a non-U.S. company that trades in U.S. financial markets”.

A glossy annual report paints a glowing picture of a media company, which appears to have transformed from a pariah into a modern media conglomerate – a global corporation with assets in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America – the 2006 report for example refers to a “chain of integrity” in which apartheid cronies sit alongside struggle heroes like Jakes Gerwel, appointed to the board in 1998 as part of its rebranding exercise.

Naspers is in all reality the tactical media wing of the reformed Broederbond, a secret society which still functions as an exclusive club for South Africa’s rulers. A circular published by the society reads: ‘The Afrikanerdom shall reach its ultimate destiny of domination in South Africa . . . Brothers, our solution for South Africa’s troubles is not that this or that party shall gain the upper hand, but that the Afrikaner Broederbond shall rule South Africa.”

Many people who find themselves employed by the company, may not realize the terrible truth. Media24 managers may appear to have forgotten about the prominent apartheid figures which once graced the lavish corporate headquarters on Cape Town's foreshore, despite global condemnation of their deeds, their portraits remain.

We must therefore tell the truth, another separate and parallel story of the modern rise to power of Channel Life, a company which exists on paper alone and which is the key to understanding the manner in which Sanlam, Naspers and in turn Media24 has become a front for power struggles around the globe.

The Information Scandal

FOLLOWING Watergate and the Vietnam war, South Africa would be rocked by its very own media debacle of the 1970s. The Information Scandal as it was known, involving National Party interference in the English press and a dirty tricks campaign which had been waged against both the anti-apartheid movement and governments abroad which dared to interfere in the policy of apartheid. Huge amounts of money were shifted under the government of B J Vorster and his genuflecting Minister of Information, Connie Mulder in a propaganda war which saw the attempted purchase of the Washington Star.

In 1973 Vorster agreed to Mulder's plan to shift about 64 million rand from the defense budget to undertake a series of propaganda projects. Plans included bribes of international news agencies and the purchase of a Washington newspaper. Needless to say, it is the Naspers corporation which ultimately benefited from its close association with the National Party.

With the advent of electronic media in the 1980s and firmly in the pockets of the apartheid government, Naspers expanded its economic activities to incorporate pay-television and later Internet platforms. Drawing upon the huge concessions awarded it by the Nationalist regime via a sophisticated and often reckless system of government tenders, kickbacks and outright cronyism, what would become known as the Naspers Group, then variously MIH Naspers, Multichoice and then Channel Life, effectively bootstrapped itself upon the success of the National Party and its dealings with the new regime which would follow.

In 1985, at the height of government censorship and the all out propaganda effort which had resulted from the Cold War and numerous “states of emergency” imposed by the securocrat PW Botha, Naspers and several South African media companies, seemingly unaffected by political unrest and interference from the apartheid Bureau for State Security (BOSS), formed an electronic pay-media business, M-Net. M-Net was listed on the JSE Securities exchange South Africa five years later in 1990.

During the reign of nationalist leader PW Botha (the 9th Prime Minister of the first Republic of South Africa) whose paranoid security cabinet had fomented a silent putsch by the military under General Magnus Malan, installing itself as the final arbiter over the apartheid state, and amidst a general clampdown on civil rights in particular free speech, which built upon the earlier police-states of JB Vorster and Hendrik Verwoerd, Naspers prospered.

The State of Emergency was a time in which blacks were denied the vote except in the “bantustans” while so-called “coloured” and “Indian” were given separate rule at home in a practice known as separate development, Naspers began an aggressive expansion resulting in the acquisition of a 50% stake in Jane Raphealy and Associates, a well-known publisher of various women's magazines targeted at the white market.

South Africa's media was by no means entirely complicit. Despite enormous pressure from the state , the danger of government spies, embedded journalists and constant harassment from security police, an alternative press had come into being largely as a result of opposition by the anti-apartheid movement. The parallel history of those who wrote and worked at titles such as South, Grassroots, New Nation, Weekly Mail and Vrye Weekblad is related in a number of historical narratives such as Les Switzer and Mohammed Adhikari “South Africa's Resistance Press”.

Most fail to note the obvious dilemma of anybody writing such a history, by at once denying the inevitability of change, and papering over the problem resulting from a complex historical period in which many journalists who allied themselves with the anti-apartheid movement were prevented from working for mainstream media whose titles reflected the policies of the government of the day, either because of the colour of their skin, or their political or ideological opposition to the system known as apartheid.

It is safe therefore to make the following observation. Those who worked for Naspers, even the lowest clerk or secretary must have done so because they supported the company in its aims and objectives. Those who did not, invariably found themselves cast out of the fold and forced to make a living either working and writing for the alternative press or not working at all.

In October 1993 a few months prior to the democratic elections M-Net, the South Africa's sole pay-channel was divided into two companies. The subscriber management, signal distribution and cellular telephone businesses, together with a holding in FilmNet (a pay-television operator in Europe) were placed into a new company called MultiChoice Limited (later named MIH Holdings Limited) -- M-NET, South Africa's first pay channel had became simply one of many Multichoice channels.

Whether because Naspers feared the new black majority government would nationalise assets, or due to simple financial prudence, the strategy proved effective. Henceforth Afrikaner media interests would be borne forth via a complex arrangement whereby European corporates vouchsafed the existence of an asset base in South Africa, whose saving grace was the New World Order.

A similar, though less complex scheme can be seen during the same period amongst the English press. In order to protect Anglo-American interests, the Argus Group was sold off initially in a piecemeal manner and then lock stock and barrel to the Irish-based Independent Group, which immediately assumed control over the liberal stake in the press under the pretext of British and Irish expansion. It should be remembered that the ANC was predominately a political wing of an armed liberation struggle which had not been shy to use force in achieving its goals.

Thus under the guise of Irish and British interests and the so-called Irish Problem, the Anglo-American stake could be preserved by appearing to make overtures to supporters of Shin Fein. Likewise, Afrikaners would be assured of protection from donor states such as France and Germany which had casually supported the National government in its war against communism.

In 1995, Naspers corporate history records the luxury goods company Richemont S.A. and MultiChoice Limited merging their global pay-television operations, which included interest in FilmNet, MultiChoice’s operations in Africa, and Richemont’s interest in Telepiu, into a single venture called NetHold B.V., which MultiChoice held through its subsidiary, MIH Limited. The birth of Multichoice and its holding company MIH would take an enormous degree of time and effort to explain and deserves its own chapter in the annals of history. The result though, was that South Africa ended up with a digital satellite monopoly and a telecommunications sector which was anything but competitive when it came to delivery of broadband and cable.

As far as the new electronic media was concerned, there were a number of pretenders to the crown in the early days of Internet commerce. Aztec Information, an early startup was acquired by iAfrica which in turn was acquired by a new entity by the name of MWeb. Within the space of months, Naspers had gobbled up its competition, many of whom were in no position to resist hostile takeovers and bids which undercut value by denying access to valuable infrastructure still controlled by the government, and which papered over the terrible fact – the only cable telecoms ostensibly in private hands were also stuck in various government portfolios which in turn were attached to various deals made by the ANC with the National Party.

Thus in 1997, MIH Limited created a national Internet service provider and named it MWeb Holdings. In March 1998, MWeb Holdings was quietly spun off as a listed entity on the JSE but subsequently delisted with Naspers holding 100% of the economic interest in the company. The game of corporate rugby in which two teams owned and controlled by different parts of the same company played on a field manufactured before a live audience that is itself owned and controlled by the corporation, had begun.

In the Manufacture of Consent, media critic Noam Chomsky notes the manner in which media debates can be rigged so that opposition becomes a mere construct of the person doing the arguing. In other words, it helps to have an opponent who agrees with you, but not so much so that the illusion of debate falls apart. Is open debate possible in a networked world in which everybody is contracted to everybody else?

Following the events of September 11 2001, the very idea of the public sphere has been called into account by documentaries such as Zeitgeist and Fahrenheit 911 both of which question the complicity of media in the creation of a reality that is manufactured to such a degree that the only true reality is artifice. In today's interconnected world of all pervasive media, we no longer know what is true, let alone the truth, or do we?

In Network, a 1976 Hollywood satire, about a fictional television network the Union Broadcasting System (UBS) and its struggle with poor ratings, a crazy journalist threatens to kill himself on air, but instead is lulled by the increase in ratings to stay, so much so, that the Network eventually conspires to actually kill him, if only also to increase the ratings.

The tragicomic character Beale played by actor Peter Finch ends up with his own show, in scenes which ultimately produce some of the best commentary on media manipulation in our age, and which have been reproduced endlessly by modern-day media-critics through the unlikely medium of Youtube. Beale discovering that the conglomerate that owns UBS will be bought out by an even larger conglomerate, launches into an on-screen tirade against the two corporations, encouraging the audience to telegram the Whitehouse with the message, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more," in the hopes of stopping the merger.

Naspers spate of mergers and acquisitions which followed the rebranding of the core print division in 2000 to create Media24 may well have resulted in a number of Beales, it is difficult to comprehend the extent to which press freedom and the right-to-know has been sacrificed on the alter of profit. However, once a media corporation becomes sufficiently large, larger than an average-sized country, it is hard to imagine a world outside of the corporation.

Essentially what happens, and this is true of so many media corporates which have grown from humble beginnings into modern behemoths, the media created by the corporation begins to have a doubling-up effect. So on any given day, a Media24 employee might start the day reading a Media24 newspaper, after which he or she turns on a Multichoice channel, flips through another 50 channels all conveyed on an MIH system, turns to a computer to post an email using MWeb, then orders a book via Kalahari.Net (a Naspers subsidiary) published by Kwela, owned by Nasboek, its book division.

He or she will probably needs some money to buy the book. No problem, Naspers has thought of everything. Not only does Channel Life now provide a convenient vehicle for the purchase of insurance (along with your DSTV subscription) as it turns out, Naspers, because of its constant need to merge, has become a division of Sanlam, a financial group whose Afrikaner origins dovetail the history of Naspers.

Millennium Media

THE salient facts after the events of the millennium and Y2K is not the Naspers Group's expansion into China, Europe, Africa and Brazil but rather the group's transformation at home, from a media group which produces media, into a hedge fund which produces profit.

The much-vaunted dematerialisation of assets and “unlocking of share value” brought about by what was initially thought to be an attempted hostile takeover during 2006, brought new visions of things to come.

Up until this time, the structure of the core business, at least in terms of share ownership, pretty much resembled the original company with the addition of MIH Multichoice. The business was media. Granted, there had been a number of token appointments, such as Jakes Gerwel to the board but the directorship and ownership reflected the domination of an all-white, all-male boardroom, whose predominant concern was with diversifying from print media into electronic media and beyond.

In essence Naspers on paper is a holding company for a variety of media subsidiaries, each one on its own right a going concern. This is the picture which Naspers through its corporate media wishes to preserve. Unfortunately, Naspers, the company no longer exists in the way that we can conceive of it as a single entity. Instead, what exists is a carefully interwoven series of cross-ownerships and networked relationships which conspire to give the appearance of an empire.

Pay no attention to the man behind the television screen, this is the modern tale of the Wizard of OZ.

To understand the Channel Life experience and the experience of so many who have come to know South Africa's media one must first delve into the events which lead up to the Naspers dematerialisation and flirtation with capital markets around the world.

Two entrepreneurs by the names of Chris Otto and Jannie Mouton had created a moderately successful global finance company called PSG which had staged a takeover of the control structure of Naspers.

The resulting deal was sold as a means of “unlocking share-capital”. Driving a wedge into the controlling Keerem Street share-structure which had remained historical in nature, the deal would eventually allow Sanlam to become the dominant share-holder in Naspers as the new networked corporation of the future came into being, its name -- Channel Life.

According to Cape Business News: “The next bold move by PSG was to attack the out-dated control structures at media conglomerate Naspers. Essentially PSG made a rather generous offer for the Naspers A-shares held by Keeromstraat and for the A-shares themselves. The unlisted Naspers A-shares effectively control the media group, although no real economic value was attached to the shares.”

This is the part that is not shown on the Naspers organogram. Channel Life is the other side of the pyramid.

Channel Life's history goes back to the late sixties, when it was established as Anchor Life. The company was acquired by the PSG Group in January 1997.

In the year 2000, PSG Anchor Life activities were combined under the Channel Life banner. In January 2006, Sanlam became a majority shareholder and in 2009 the entire company, including its stake in Naspers was folded into the Sanlam Group. How was such a financial coup possible? Easy, the history of Sanlam is intertwined with that of Naspers -- Willie Hofmeyr, Fred Dormehl, and Pieter Malan, the three founders of Sanlam, were also present at the formation of the Naspers Company in 1915 -- it would appear ownership and control of the media and finance sector by one dominant company has been part of the game plan of the Broederbond all along.

A student enrolled at a City Varsity journalism course may be forgiven for thinking that a shadowy corporation called Channel Life now sets the media curriculum at the campus, as well as the price of household insurance. Sanlam is a massive player in the South African housing market. The recent Metropolitan and Momentum merger for example, has meant Channel Life cross-ownership effects other media groups, for example Kagiso media, operator of local radio stations such as Heart 104.9 shares territory and holdings with Sanlam – the Sanlam stake in Metropolitan and the new entity called MMI is estimated in the billions.

The result is somewhat frightening -- leading investigative magazine Noseweek published several articles in 2007 critical of Naspers division Educor. In “Degree of Deception” and “Diploma Circus” the magazine questioned “Dodgy practices, plagiarism and cover-ups with the help of political influence”, and whether journalism degrees from Naspers Educor amount to anything more than brainwashing.

Looking east, the Channel Life deal had enormous benefits as Sanlam capital was deployed in a host of acquisitions and technology mergers like the purchase of a stake in Digital Sky that ultimately lead to the acquisition of a slice of Facebook. The networked corporation of the future was not simply content – information is the basis of people's lives in many respects -- but life itself. Social interactions, relationships, even casual friendship, all would be aggregated and sold as part of the new emerging commerce of the Internet. The value of the deal measured in billions of dollars means Naspers i.e. Channel Life is currently one of the most influential media corporations on the planet, alongside Rupert Murdoch's News corporation, and Clear Channel Independent.

Could the grand dictator Hendrik Verwoerd have ever contemplated that his family's share in Perskor would end up turning into a stake in Facebook? (Naspers own a 50% stake in Perskor alongside Caxton). As I write this the Press Council is holding a series of hearings, the latest on the 26th floor of the Naspers Building on Cape Town's foreshore. They wish to know how the Press Ombudsman may be improved. The only answer one can imagine, is to disband. Stop pretending to be journalists. Admit the truth, the idea of an independent media is a fraud when independence comes at the price of journalistic integrity, when the compromise is power, and the truth is -- the banks and the insurance industry control South Africa's media.

UPDATE: ‘Predator’ complaint against Media24

http://www.southafrica.info/news/business/1255582.htm

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=157472

Size Issue reaches milestone success

2009-08-19T22:51:00.003+02:00

We are happy to report that it appears pressure from this blog has caused the unbundling of Clear Channel Independent. Of course this is no longer news, the event occurred silently and without much fanfare in September 2oo8 and has only now began to be picked up by various blogs such as this one.

As the Obama presidency enters its first year, INM has hastened to make itself appear more of a Democratic Party mouthpiece and less the lackey of Neo-Conservative Republicanism. Don't be fooled.

What impact this will have on the Mulroney Scandal remains to be seen. Has INM stepped back from the brink as far as its involvement in Halliburten and Blackwater is concerned? Former South African chief, Sean Johnson can probably thank his lucky stars that all the local cabal has left to play with is a Municipal security firm and covert contracts in the form of the Mother City's own CCID.

Meanwhile big cheese Sir Tony O still has a lot to answer for about his relationship with Lowry Mays, George Bush and Dick Cheney. Cost of the Iraqi fiasco that saw American security firms Blackwater and Halliburten making enormous profits, at the expense of press freedom and democracy is as yet unknown.

Who said press was about freedom? Its about money dammit, as Gavin O'Reilly will no doubt tell you.

Newspaper industry rocked by Oliphant Commission

2009-02-24T17:55:00.003+02:00

The Oliphant Commission is an albatross around O'Reilly's neck. It is only a matter of time before the truth emerges. Independent directors Brian Mulroney has been implicated in a massive fraud and kick-backs scandal linked to German arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber. The fallout is world-wide loss of prestige in publishing, as the entire newspaper industry is rocked. The Size Issue wants to know exactly how much Mulroney was paid for his directorship. The former liberal-party Canadian PM is also on South African INM's "international advisory board" and was recently seen partying up a storm at Cape Town's Castle.

Oliphant Inquiry set to rock Independent Group

2008-12-12T15:33:00.000+02:00

From the Oliphant Inquiry website:

NOTICE

The Honourable Justice Jeffrey Oliphant has been appointed as Commissioner to conduct an inquiry into certain allegations respecting business and financial dealings between Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney. The Commissioner will convene hearings to assist him in investigating and reporting on the factual matters (the “factual inquiry”) included in the Commission’s terms of reference. Click here for the terms of reference.

Applications by interested individuals, groups, governments and agencies for standing and funding will be heard commencing at 09:30 a.m. on October 2, Oct. 3, Oct. 6 and Oct. 7, 2008 at Victoria Hall, Bytown Pavilion, 111 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario. No evidence will be heard at this time.

Applicants for standing must demonstrate that they have a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the factual inquiry. Applicants for funding must demonstrate that they do not have sufficient financial resources to participate in the factual inquiry without such funding.

In order to be considered, applicants must submit applications for standing and funding in writing to the Inquiry either by delivering a copy by mail, courier or fax to the Commission offices at the address set out below, or by e-mail to inquiry.admin@oliphantcommission.ca, no later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday, September 24, 2008.

Persons with any information relating to the subject matter of the factual inquiry, including documents, the name and contact information for any person, or any other information relevant to the mandate of the Commission, are requested to submit such information to the Inquiry either by mail or fax to the Commission offices at the address set out below, or by e-mail to inquiry.admin@oliphantcommission.ca, as soon as possible.

Oliphant Commission
427 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 400
P.O. Box 2740 Station D
Ottawa Canada K1P 5W7
Phone: (613) 995-0756
Fax: (613) 995-0785

Mulroney-Schrieber inquiry looms in 2009

2008-12-12T15:25:00.000+02:00

The Mulroney-Schreiber scandal refers to the complex personal, political and business relationship between the Rt. Hon Brian Mulroney, 18th Prime Minister of Canada, and Karlheinz Schreiber, a German-born Canadian businessman.

At the heart of this scandal are the cash payments made by Karlheinz Schreiber to Brian Mulroney in 1993, allegedly agreed to while Mulroney was still Prime Minister, with the first of the three cash payments occurring while Mulroney was still a Member of Parliament. Mr. Mulroney contends these payments were for work he did internationally, lobbying on behalf of Thyssen Armoured Vehicles, a German company represented by Schreiber. Mr. Schreiber maintains the payments were for work Mr. Mulroney was to do lobbying the Canadian government. There is a question as to whether lobbying the Canadian government of Members of Parliament on behalf of the Thyssen corporation would have constituted a violation of the conflict of interest or post employment code in force at the time as well as the Parliament of Canada Act.

The Harper government had long been aware that allegations existed concerning Mr. Mulroney and his relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber. Prime Minister Harper was present with Mr. Mulroney at the Greenest Prime Minister Awards when Mulroney was questioned by journalists specifically about the cash payments he received from Schreiber.

Despite this, the Harper government continued its close association with Brian Mulroney, allowing him wide-ranging access to members of Cabinet, allowing him to be a successful advocate on many files, including telecommunications for his employer, Quebecor. Indeed, Prime Minister Harper claimed to regularly consult Mulroney as a political advisor, and Harper cabinet minister Marjory Lebreton was said to be in daily phone contact with Brian Mulroney.

On November 8th, 2007, Karlheinz Schreiber filed an affidavit in Federal Court in Toronto detailing his extensive relationship with Brian Mulroney over many years, including the meetings with Mulroney while he was Prime Minister, and the cash payments he made to Mr. Mulroney It was also revealed that Mr. Schreiber had made many of these same allegations in a March 2007 letter to Prime Minister Harper.

On November 9th, Stephen Harper called a press conference announcing that members of the government should cease their dealings with Brian Mulroney, and that he was engaging Dr. David Johnson to recommend whether a public inquiry into the allegations was warranted. Days later, after Mr. Mulroney himself said he welcomed an inquiry, Mr. Harper yielded to opposition demands and agreed to call a judicial inquiry.

Dr. Johnson reported on Monday, April 7th, recommending a limited inquiry into the affair. He even suggested the inquiry commissioner might want to make the hearings more "efficient" by holding parts of the probe in secret. Responding to the report, Government House Leader Peter Van Loan told reporters, "We will be acting on the recommendations that Professor Johnston has provided and a commissioner should be appointed very soon.".

The government then delayed appointing a commissioner for another 66 days likely to ensure that an inquiry could not be up an running until 2009, well after an expected fall election.

On June 12th, 2008 the government appointed Jeffrey Oliphant, associate chief justice of Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench to head the judicial inquiry.

The Oliphant inquiry is not scheduled to begin until February 2009. Richard Wolson, the Winnipeg lawyer serving as chief counsel to the probe, says he and his staff face a huge amount of work compiling and analyzing documentary evidence before they can put any witnesses on the stand.

FROM: http://toryscandals.blogspot.com/2008/11/mulroney-schreiber-scandal.html

Mulroney Scandal tip of the iceberg?

2008-02-17T16:03:00.005+02:00

WHEN Canada's award-winning news programme, Fifth Estate first broadcast about Brian Mulroney’s attempt in the late nineties to conceal a questionable financial relationship with a businessman and lobbyist named Karlheinz Schreiber, the story was a mere "historical controversy". It has now become the "the hottest political challenge the Harper government has had to face since taking office."

In October, 2007, Canadian PM, Stephen Harper shocked everyone with an announcement: he was calling a public inquiry.

Barely four months later, Mulroney made an appearance at a lavish bash in Cape Town, as part of the Independent Group's window dressing on a variety of scandals involving government kick-backs, extraordinary funding and their involvement in a sponsor representative scam. It's a story South African's are increasingly becoming familier with, yet another kick-back and funding scandal that involves chief executives of a media, entertainment and public relations corporation, which just happens to own a couple of newspapers.

Independent Group have yet to publish anything on various scandal's involving its diversification into property and the petroleum industry.

When rumors surfaced about a shadowy German-born wheeler-dealer and his unusual influence among people close to the Mulroney government, the story was dismissed by Canadians as a flash in the pan.

Thanks to the alternative press and programmes like the Fifth Estate, it has evolved "into a Shakespearean tale of ego, money and ambition: the elements now fueling a political firestorm that threatens to consume the two men caught in the middle it and the government that is trying to control it."

What are the consquences for the Independent Group who have staked their reputation's on a man at the centre of a Canadian criminal investigation? Will this be the end of Tony O'Reilly? Is Sean Johnson implicated?

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/unauthorizedchapter/

Mulroney Corruption Scandal Breaks

2008-02-16T13:16:00.005+02:00

THE Royal Canadian Mounted Police were given detailed allegations of a plan to reward Brian Mulroney with kickbacks on the sale of Airbus aircraft nine months before the Canadian government awarded the former prime minister $2.1 million.

According to The Star.Com Giorgio Pelossi, the Swiss accountant for Karlheinz Schreiber, says he provided six hours of taped testimony to the Mounties in March 1996, laying out what Schreiber had told him of the alleged scheme to reward Mulroney for Air Canada's purchase of $1.8 billion worth of Airbus jets.

Pelossi said he also gave the Mounties evidence that he'd helped set up secret Swiss bank accounts in which to deposit the kickbacks to Mulroney and Frank Moores, an influential lobbyist and former premier of Newfoundland.

But, as Pelossi told the Commons ethics committee Thursday, he doesn't know if any Airbus money was actually ever paid to the former prime minister.The committee is investigating Mulroney's dealings with Schreiber.

Mulroney absolutely Pissed

2008-02-16T13:16:00.004+02:00

Brian Mulroney seen at Whisky Drinkers Shindig:

http://www.quillandquire.com/events/images/738.jpg
Newest Member of Old Boy’s Club absolutely sloshed

Independent Media Advisor centre of corruption scandal

2008-02-16T13:16:00.002+02:00

THE Chairperson of Independent News & Media, International Advisory Board, Brian Mulroney is at the centre of a scandal. According to Canada.Com, an ethics committee is examining cash payments made by arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber to Mulroney in 1993 and 1994 as he left political office.

The German-Canadian lobbyist claims to have paid the former prime minister $300,000 in envelopes stuffed with $1,000 bills while Mulroney is reported to have said he only received $225,000. Mulroney apparently told the committee that he was late paying income tax on Schreiber's cash payments, but settled the matter with the Canada Revenue Agency in 1999. The Schreiber cash was apparently a retainer for lobbying services on the international stage to sell armoured vehicles to foreign countries such as China, Russia and France.

The Canada.Com website reported yesterday, that a Commons ethics committee looking into Mulroney-Schreiber's cash dealings will not subpoena the former prime minister's tax records from the 1990s and will end their hearings with Brian Mulroney's testimony that is, "if he decides to show up."

Since Mulroney was appointed to the INM advisory board his answers may have a bearing on investigations into the South African arms deal saga that has implicated presidential hopeful, Jacob Zuma and other well known politicians.

Content-controls versus corrective surgery?

2008-02-12T13:36:00.000+02:00

SOUTH AFRICA has a history of stifling criticism, squashing dissent and suppressing those who do not fit into a narrow concept of society. It is a legacy, both of colonialism and the bizarre system created under National Party rule. Declaiming about political economy as Jane Duncan does, (Business Day 29 January 2008) or simply positioning oneself within an intellectual theory, one of many which seem to describe the role of the media, cannot undo this legacy.

In fact we run the risk of assuming freedom is the result of theory, and not simply struggle. However, as much as we have been silenced, South African’s have resisted censorship and attempts to clamp down on freedom of expression. It would be wonderful if we could say, without any sense of irony, that our society's greatest achievement is its ability to absorb criticism. Unfortunately in today’s global order, the achievements of our freedom struggle have been diminished by the transnational machinations of corporate mergers, media consolidations, the creation of new elites, party politics and the misguided attempt by our government to intervene in the production of content.

Duncan is correct in distinguishing three media groupings in South Africa and proposing legislation that would restrict the ability of these entities to own or control more than a certain percentage of the market. Unfortunately a 30% rule would merely serve to even out the market between the top three players.

May I be so bold to suggest the following corrective surgery in the light of the inability of corporate media, such as Media24 to absorb criticism? The group recently refused to publish a story about a black jazz musician on the basis that the article did not conform to a "coloured" target market. It has further refused to engage with the TRC in anything more than lip-service and with a near stranglehold on the local magazine publishing, printing and distribution sector, Media24 clearly needs to be broken up into smaller units that may compete with each other in the marketplace of ideas.

Stronger and more effective laws on the cross-ownership of media are further needed to prevent any single company from owning a monopoly or cartel and stifling criticism. It is not just Media24 which has silenced its critics. The Independent Group is a prime example of the result of unbridled access to capital and the accumulation of profits that have come at the detriment of press freedom and intellectual inquiry.The company is known for having a ready stock of commentators who deliver opinions, but only within the narrow confines determined by Dublin and the Washington Consensus.

Independent has gone so far as to give sponsor representation at boardroom level, creating an unfair relationship with advertising companies and public relations firms through its interests in Clear Channel, a company accused of crony capitalism in its dealings with the Bush Family.

Avusa, despite being the smallest kid on the block, is no better off and has simply imitated the cross-ownership strategies deployed by Independent and Media24 while supporting the present dispensation in which the Press Ombud exists without reference to articles 15, 18 and 19 governing freedom of opinion, association and political choices, with the resulting decline in freedom of expression. We are fast approaching a period of self-censorship, in which journalists are afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs.

Until the major media houses come clean on their role in the brainwashing, censorship, and enforcement of discrimination, (all still part and parcel of the apartheid legacy,) while instituting corrective action such as labour policies that do not discriminate on the basis of race, class or creed, criticism such as this will continue to be leveled. How can we rectify the media system without destroying press freedom even further? How do we move forward without perpetuating the apartheid legacy, or damaging a fragile democracy that has slowly emerged out of the struggle for press freedom?

Funding media diversity merely serves to patch the system in a piecemeal process in which the greatest impediments to diversity are the lack of infrastructure, access to low-cost printing and distribution -- 50% of the population are still effectively excluded from the organs of media production because of the legacy of apartheid.

Instead of passing laws here and there, we need corrective surgery that will tackle the economics that make quality media and a media that is affordable, critical, outspoken and free-thinking. To date, there is little outlet for debate, new ideas, life experiences, except over the Internet. Unless South Africa dramatically increases bandwidth and lowers the cost of entry, such expression will continue to be seen as elitist and unaffordable.

Regardless of the policies of the government of the day, the prerogative of struggle is freedom. It is not something one sacrifices without a fight -- we should therefore stop looking towards our politicians for all the answers, learn to challenge corporate hegemony and remember George Orwell when he said: Freedom of the press all too often becomes freedom for those who own the presses.

Media24’s many scandals start to weigh in as 2008 brings a fresh bungle

2008-02-12T11:39:00.000+02:00

MIH Naspers, missed the opportunity offered by South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission to come clean. Instead, it has chosen to hide behind constitutional guarantees of press freedom by ignoring calls for openness and transparency. According to the commission, the company merely submitted a short “corporate history” that diverged little from the official version, already laid out in apartheid history books.

Media24 have therefore played down the startling fact that racist supremo, D F Malan, one of the architects of apartheid, was its founding father. Instead of showing contrition, the company continues to revise history, creating a business paradise out of the former apartheid state, and turning South Africa into some corporate homeland in which profits come before people. The inevitable cost of global expanision has been the truth.

Like the fact that Harpo, the company which produced Oprah Winfrey’s award-winning, O magazine is now being fingered for its association with Media24’s and the group’s ongoing racial profiling, newsroom segregation and workplace censorship.

The O magazine continues to be printed by Media24 subsidiaries, Paarl Print, and NND24. Not surprising since, the publishers of the South African version of O, Associated Magazines, is jointly owned by Jane Raphaely and Associates along with Naspers.

Jane’s daughter Julia runs the show at Associated and denies any involvement, but in a telephonic conversation with one Mark Rosin, a spokesperson for he company, the link was acknowledged: “Yes, we have a business relationship with Media24″, he said, but not before threatening “a very expensive defamation case”.

Rosin was however, forced to admit that such a course of action would be detrimental to freedom of the press, and requested a “proposal to resolve the issue”.

South African O is actually a joint venture between (Hearst) Harpo and Associated Magazines.Details such as these are available from the Naspers website, in particular its “history” page.Below are a few scandals involving Media24 that you may already know about. Then again, if you’re getting your news from News24 or any one of the many titles associated with the brand, you might be suffering from what George Orwell called “doublespeak” in which each and every scandal is turned into a startling example of foresight and CEO diligence — real boardroom “consideration” instead of the ineptitude and negligence it is. Forget the damn lies and statistics, Media24 continues to dupe the public with lavish press conferences that cover-up the truth and public relations fiascos’ that merely spin each story into the arena of a racist media fairy tale that forgets there is still much to be told about the groups’s human rights violations.

Apartheid was a crime against humanity, not an “interesting learning experience for black folk”.
Just so that Media24 doesn’t completely pull the wool over your eyes in 2008, here is a list of Media24 many bungles including its current bungle.THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH FRAUDAfter damming evidence of newsroom segregation and workplace censorship, Media24 sort to gag one of its employees. The report was not carried by any mainstream title but survived online.

Media24 has sought to muzzle one of its former employees, reports Sangonet and FXi Cape Town Anti-War Coalition: Racism and Anti-Semitism at Media24 Newsroom

THE EDUCATION DEGREES FRAUD
Noseweek accused Media24 of delivering fake degrees. An accusation that has yet to be adequitely answered. The online reports remain.
Media24 collages - A degree of deception reports Noseweek
Media24’s diploma circus reports Noseweek

THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT FRAUD
Media24 conveniently turned this one around, so that it looked as if its accuser was the guilty one, but like most cases involving the company, its accuser won out. The case is documented on the internet.
A case heard on appeal, Media24 v Grobler documented by SAFLII shows that the Appeal Court found the company negligent for breach by employer of legal duty to maintain working environment in which employees not subject to sexual harassment

THE NAMING FRAUD
Media24 has even tried to clamp down on the common use of the numeral 24. In this saga, the company joyfully proclaimed its ownership over each and every instance of the number without thought as to the consequences. One side of the story is still available for further investigation.
Legal battle over proper use of ‘24’ reports News24

THE CIRCULATION’S FRAUD
Bringing news headlines from online journos, the circulations fraud saga of 2007 made interesting reading. Pity the unanswered questions online refuse to go away
MPASA condemns Media24’s magazine circulation irregularities reports Bizcommunity
Media24 staff responsible for circulation irregularities reports Bizcommunity
Potential criminal charges in Media24 scandal reports Bizcommunity
How did it all go wrong at Media24? reports Bizcommunity
Media24 mag staff in hot water reports Bizcommunity
‘Horrified’ Media24 admits to false circulation figures reports Mail & Guardian Online Advertisers want Media24 refund reports Business News SA

THE HARPO FRAUD
This story at Harpo has yet to break, we are challenging online hacks to give it a go

lobomedia

2008-01-31T15:18:00.001+02:00

lobomedia
Originally uploaded by david robert lewis

INM Lies & Mischief

2008-01-31T15:17:00.001+02:00

INM Lies & Mischief
Originally uploaded by david robert lewis

Music Journalist speaks out about INM Fraud and Media24 racism

2007-09-07T10:46:00.000+02:00

Check out this video link in which David Robert Lewis speaks out about racism at Media24 and the INM fraud.

South Africa’s newspapers can’t be trusted to tell the truth.

2007-08-09T13:35:00.000+02:00

WITH the exception of one last remaining “struggle” newspaper, the Mail & Guardian, South Africa’s newspapers can’t be trusted to tell the truth. Even then, the M&G often gets it wrong, like when it deleted a posting last year, (made on an online blog managed by its holding company in conjunction with Media24) and then pretended to forget where it had put the offending material. All this pales in comparison to the M&G’s rivals.

As you may already know, Media24 stand accused of racism, discrimination and the racial profiling of readers, not to mention segregation in its newsrooms and anti-Semitism. The company has also refused to make a proper submission to the TRC, despite having employed such luminous and illiberal editors as D F Malan, former editor of Die Burger and the South African prime minister responsible for the introduction of racial segregation in 1948.

As if this weren’t bad enough, the Independent Group, who at least made the effort to attend the hearings, have failed to cover the story of local media participation in the Apartheid regime, with anything more than corporate bias. To put it bluntly, South Africa’s new global media are somewhat intolerant of anyone rocking the boat against the corporate establishment – read Anglo-American self-interest -- even if this means continued support for racism, discrimination and unethical behaviour in its capitalist colonies.

Complaints to editors have simply gone unheeded, as too the right of reply, which is much diminished despite the protestations to the contrary by former president FW de Klerk’s press secretary. The right of reply, a relic of liberalism, is rapidly turning into a privilege afforded only the rich and well to do. An example, is the spat between David Robert Lewis and Karen Breytenbach. Breytenbach, writing in the Cape Times, claimed Lewis was a “serial litigator” and an “unsuccessful” one to boot, conveniently forgetting the truth. Lewis won a judgment in the small claims court against Independent in 2003, but the Cape Times refused to acknowledge it had lost, and neglected to print the award either as a “matter of fact” and now as a retraction.

The Press Ombudsman refuses to entertain the matter unless Lewis signs away his civil rights, something which he refuses to do. In a letter written at the time of the case and in response to a query about industry norms, Anthea Garman, editor of the Rhodes Journalism Review and senior lecturer in the Department of Journalism and Media studies, said: “The commissioning editor acts not as an individual but on behalf of a media organisation and therefore uses the authority of the organisation to commission work. As such the organisation should honour those commitments regardless of whether that editor remains in the position or not.”

“It is usual in the print industry that if circumstances intervene making it impossible for the commissioned work to be published that a “kill fee” is negotiated.”

The standards set by the Independent Group can be said to be anything but normal. Since the Independent Group failed to honour various commitments made by its staff and was found to be liable for outstanding debts in the Cape Town Small Claims Court, it should have at least had the temerity to acknowledge it was wrong. However, the company continues to renage on its agreements, outsourcing work to low paid labour scalpers in defiance of media unions, and operating what Stephen Davis calls a “crony board” headed by a CEO who has scored “zero” for corporate governance. Admittedly, the latest report was commissioned by a minority stakeholder in INM, Denis O’Brien, after ongoing criticism of the Groups’ holding company, so the point has been made, if somewhat obliquely.

The O’Brian report which reads like a manifesto for a corporate takeover (the man owns some 8.3% of the holding company, for crying out loud) acknowledges startling conflicts of interest in South Africa’s media at boardroom level -- chief of these is the manner in which INM board members receive compensation. Conveniently absent from the report are revelations of the ongoing Clear Channel Independent scandal which saw an international public relations firm, with holdings in sports and entertainment representation and outdoor advertising, in conflict with Independent’s core business. The O’Reilly game would still appear to be the reporting of news, but like so many rackets, now looks increasingly like the tailoring of news to meet the demands of its sponsor representatives.

How much of the front page of the Cape Times is up for grabs? Questions about the sale of editorial space have plagued Independent ever since it bought the Argus Group and an English-language newspaper monopoly in the Cape, but the uncomfortable truth remain, for at least a period of five years (2001-2005), INM sold its editorial copy to the highest bidder, getting into bed with the Republican party (at least a R1 ¼ million campaign contribution to George W Bush), Halliburten (L Lowy Mays) as well as the representatives for high profile stars such as David Beckham and Madonna.

The story of INM’s very own “Enron Scandal” makes for entertaining bedtime reading material compared to its uncomfortable relationship with the Bank of Ireland which owns a majority 30%+ stake in the business, making O’Reilly a second fiddler to larger petro-chemical and property interests. While the shenanigans of the current O’Reilly board have been examined by the minority upstart stakeholder O’Brian, little has been said about the emerging conflict involving local oil tycoon, Sam Montsi or South African CEO Tony Howard’s refusal to accommodate a simple Access to Information request filed by the Alternative Media Forum (AMF). The AMF is an unfunded group of media activists seeking truth and accountability in South Africa’s media, amongst other things.

To date there has been little progress towards a broader South African media that includes freedom of choice and the accommodation of alternative voices, divergent interests and different points of view. The AMF appears to have withdrawn its High Court application after suffering a temporary setback related to the country’s outdated laws regulated the ability of insolvents to petition the court, this despite a history of censorship under apartheid.

So it’s back to blogging away at the global corporate media fiasco. As Steve Bloomfield says in a report carried in the Cape Times on Woman’s day: When you cannot trust newspapers to publish the truth in Africa, you blog it

-ends-

Tony O’Reilly faces shareholder grilling

2007-06-13T17:32:00.000+02:00

INDEPENDENT Newspapers CEO Tony O’Reilly faces his sternest test yet at what is likely to be an explosive shareholders’ meeting today, as a damning report will cast the spotlight firmly on whether he is the best man to be running the company.
This has a number of implications for SA as the Independent Group is the largest newspaper owner in SA, publishing 15 daily and weekly newspapers including the Star, the Cape Argus and the Sunday Tribune.
It also holds 50% of outdoor advertising network Clear Channel, and publishes three magazines: House & Garden, GQ and Glamour. O’Reilly is a member of President Thabo Mbeki’s investment council.
Today O’Reilly is likely to be grilled on whether he is giving minority investors a raw deal by failing to implement proper gov-ernance at the company, which is listed in London and Ireland.
The report was commissioned by billionaire Denis O’Brien, who has increased his stake in the Independent Group to 8,3% — possibly positioning himself for a broader assault on O’Reilly, who owns 26% of the company.
The report was written by governance expert Stephen Davis, who serves on UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s committee on economic reform and is a co-founder of the International Corporate Governance Network.
It concluded that the Independent Group “falls markedly short of best-in-class corporate governance when compared with either home or global markets”.
“The firm’s Achilles heel is a board composed of directors who nearly all have affiliations in some fashion with the principal shareowner, who is also the CEO,” it said.
It said this could “undermine investor confidence” as the market “is likely to price the stock at a discount owing to risks investors see in a crony board”.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A490614

Picket outside the World Editors Forum, Cape Town

2007-06-07T12:40:00.000+02:00

Yesterday one of the members of the Alternative Media Forum picketed the Cape Town International Convention Centre, where the 17th World Editors Forum and 40th Newspaper Congress was being held. The picket lasted two hours and comments from passersby was generally positive. A few members of the press took photographs, and promised to publish pictures of the banner which read: World Media War Hypocrisy, what happened to the truth?

Despite over 2000 demonstrations against war in the past month alone, not one received coverage from corporate media.

In other news not covered by the hypocrites of mass media, the revolution in Chiapas continues.

Also, the Alternative Media Forum launched an application to the High Court of South Africa to force the Independent Group to obey its own press code amongst other things. The appointment by the court of a firm of attorneys to represent the AMF was challenged, and the application is now back at square one.

In other news, the gagging saga of a jazz journalist continues as attempts to have the story aired on corporate radio failed, however UCT student radio conducted an hour long interview and there is a groundswell of support on the nation's campuses for media activism of this nature.

Independent Group fails to disclose liability

2007-01-22T14:16:00.000+02:00

THE Independent Group, a privately-owned media company, 100% under the tutelage of Independent News & Media PLC, the Irish conglomorate, has failed to disclose its liability with regard to local litigation .

After inquiring as to the amount of money paid out by the company in the past financial year alone, in particular as a result of claims made by South Africans, Andrew Konig, INM chief financial officer failed to disclose any amount to the Alternative Media Forum, but said liability was low, and, that in terms of current financial requirements, he was not obliged to reveal the exact figures.

"As a publisher of at least 28 titles in South Africa alone, the public have a right to know how groups such as Independent News and Media conduct business in this country." said David Robert Lewis, convener of the Alternative Media Forum, a small group of media activists. The Alternative Media Forum has requested the government to formulate legislation that would require the press to become more transparent in this regard..

"Whether Independent is a publicly traded company or not, I wish to remind the big publishers that our country and its constitution is founded upon human dignity as well as openness, and that article 32. (1) (b) states everyone has the “right of access to any information that is held by another person that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights. “ said Lewis.

"Furthermore, as the owners of both daily and weekly newspapers, Independent should be more than aware that a Press Code of Professional Practice exists, to which it is a signatory."

According to the Code, freedom of the press “is indivisible from and subject to the same rights and duties as that of the individual and rests on the public’s fundamental right to be informed and freely to receive and to disseminate opinions."

The Code goes on to state -- 'the primary purpose of gathering and distributing news and opinion is to serve society by informing citizens and enabling them to make informed judgments on the issues of the time.'

And 'the freedom of the press to bring an independent scrutiny to bear on the forces that shape society is a freedom exercised on behalf of the public.'

Legislation forcing the media to be more open about issues such as liability and especially the business risks associated with "being outspoken, argumentative and opinionated" would serve to prevent further abuse of freedom of speech associated with commercial entities, many of whom have no interest in Southern Africa as a community.

"Our media seem to think they have sole proprietorship over press freedom. The situation has become worse since the international cartels moved in, driving local concerns out of business." said Lewis.

"Freedom of the press is not simply freedom for some, or freedom for those who have money, the have-nots, also enjoy this freedom, and should be assisted in making use of the the right to publish." He said.

As bearers of a “freedom exercised on behalf of the public” the press cannot argue that this type of information does not serve the “public interest”. Vigorous and open debate is needed to determine exactly what this public sphere means." added Lewis. It would seem Koning’s remarks, are a bit off the mark and evidence that the interests of the Independent Group, as he puts it, “a commercial operation”, are now being confused with the public interest.

-ends-

Oil industry takes control of Independent Group

2007-01-11T13:28:00.000+02:00

A DIRECTOR of South African oil giant, SASOL, and chairman of Montsi Investments (Pty) Limited, Sam Montsi, has been listed as a director of Independent News & Media SA (LTD) by Forbes.Com. Montsi Investments is a holdings company with vast assets in the local property market. Investments include Gensec Property Services.

In a profile, Forbes lists Montsi as a director of SASOL since 1997. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Development Economics from the University of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland in 1970 and a Masters in Development Economics from Williams College in Massachusetts in the United States in 1973.

Conflicts of interest aside, the question the public needs to be asking, is how long will it take for Independent to completely sell-out? With the Group in serious financial trouble after the Clear Channel fiasco, and a global expansion that has lead it into the hands of international financiers, in particular the Bank of Ireland, the publishing company is in serious jeapardy, as its competition steadily takes more control of core business.

Time perhaps, for the Competition Commission to get involved? As one critic remarked about South Africa's heavily traded media industry: "Competition, what competition."

PRESS OMBUD refuses to accept complaint against Independent Group

2006-12-27T13:30:00.000+02:00

THE Independent Groups' press ombud has refused to accept a complaint made by David Robert Lewis, convener of the Alternative Media Forum, with regard to a story which appeared in the Cape Times, November 28. This is because Lewis has refused to sign a waiver, unconditionally releasing Independent Newspapers and its subsidiaries, from civil litigation, without there being a concomitant agreement. He is demanding that the Cape Times "retract various aspursions and false claims made in a report that is wholly inaccurate."

"I don't see why I must simply give up my rights and acquiesce, while Independent can still sue me for publishing this complaint on a blog or distributing pamphlets about the issue". Lewis recently escaped being gagged by Media24, after a confrontation between the Alternative Media Forum and the group's attorney's, but has now had his blogged yanked by the Mail& Guardian under pressure from the mainstream press.

According to the Independent Group's Press Ombud, Ed Linington, "If Mr Lewis wishes to pursue the matter through this forum he will have to accept our rules, the first of which is to complete the waiver form provided and to sign it." Beryl Hargreaves is his assistant.

The release unconditionally waives, "any right to claim civil relief of whatsoever nature directly or indirectly related to or arising out of the complaint against the article." Without a concomitant agreement, this fact is, in itself, grounds to view the ombud as irretrievably biased and incapable of delivering an independent ruling. Is the mainstream press incapable of regulating itself?

Lewis says: "I have absolutely no reason for holding any confidence in a body set up by the commercial press that has now shown itself incapable of self-regulation. The request for a waiver without a concomitant agreement, is unreasonable in light of the actions of one of its partners. Furthermore, the notion of a monolithic press, speaking with one voice, needs to be dispensed with. This is why the Alternative Media Forum was set up, to provide alternative views and opinions which Independent now want to censure. Surely both parties should sign waivers and bind themselves to an agreement, for any progress to occur?"

Instead of reporting about the events at hand, Cape Times' reporter Karen Breytenbach, launched into an ad hominem attack, (28/11/2006) labelling Lewis a "serial litigator" and erroneously claiming that Lewis had in the "past taken or threatened to take other employers in the media industry - including the Cape Times - to the CCMA, without success."

Her report is littered with inaccuracies and the inferences drawn that Lewis is some kind of a “serial litigator” and simply a “reporter” needs to be dispensed with. Firstly, Lewis is a community journalist, and in addition to various roles in arts and culture, he has worked for Grassroots, South, New Nation and presently the Alternative Television Project.

Although Lewis has requested the press ombud to investigate a number of concerns, the body set up by the commercial press has refused to accept a change to the waiver which would have forced both parties to accept an agreement with reference to the Ombud's own code of practice. The Alternative Media Forum demands that both parties involved commit themselves to press freedom.

Since the failed gagging order by Media24, the mainstream press continues to act as if it has the sole proprietorship on press freedom. The Mail & Guardian has also caved into pressure by an Independent journalist, yanking David Robert Lewis' online bog to avoid litigation from mainstream press barons.

The following is taken from the complaint submitted to the Press Ombud:

What are the facts?

1. Judgement was handed down in the amount of R1212.90, in the Small Claims Court for the District of Cape Town during 2003, after Lewis sued the Cape Times for monies outstanding. The case is recorded by the Sheriff of Cape Town as number 336/02, D R Lewis vs Cape Times, Independent, in accordance with the Small Claims Act #61 of 1984, as amended. A further amount owed for two book reviews commissioned by the Books Editor, was written off, despite there being a tacit agreement between Lewis and the company to provide the articles.

2. An in limine hearing was conducted by the CCMA, with regard to Lewis' ad hoc relationship to the Independent Group. The CCMA found that he was an "independent contractor" and as such fell outside the jurisdiction of the commission. The inferences drawn by Breytenbach, are therefore ultra vires. Lewis has requested the parties involved to respect the terms of the commission. Please note that the hearing was conducted during implementation of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, which only came into force after the application to the commission was made.

3. Far from being an "unsuccessful" litigator, Lewis says he "was forced out of poverty and with his back to the wall" to sue the now defunct, Thisday, in the Small Claims Court, for outstanding monies owing. They lost, and he ended up in the unenviable position of having to serve a warrant of execution against property’against the company. All documentation is available for review.

4. The Media24 case before the Labour Court is now sub judice, and Lewis requests the parties concerned to refrain from discussing it before a final verdict is reached.

-ends-

ALTERNATIVE MEDIA FORUM
PO BOX 4398, CAPE TOWN 8000 RSA

JOIN MEDIALTERNATIVES CHAT LIST
Post message: medialternatives@yahoogroups.co.uk
Subscribe: medialternatives-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk
Unsubscribe: medialternatives-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk
List owner: medialternatives-owner@yahoogroups.co.uk

PRESS OMBUD refuses to accept complaint against Independent Group

2006-12-27T13:22:00.000+02:00

MIH Naspers (Media24) may be in contravention of TRC laws.

2006-09-27T11:24:00.000+02:00

MIH Naspers (Media24) the global media group and one-time spokesperson for apartheid may be in contravention of Truth and Reconciliation laws enacted to pressurise individuals, as well as groups, into making fuller submissions about their role under apartheid.

According to Vivier Jacobs, Acting Deputy Director: Victim Support TRC Unit of South Africa's Dept of Justice and Constitutional Development, "(Naspers) did not make any submissions to the TRC. Instead, they provided the TRC with a copy of “Oor grense heen”, the official history of Naspers." As far as we can tell, "that’s where their participation ended." The unit is looking into the legal status of the media group, following a request from the Alternative Media Forum's 'Campaign Against Corporate Apartheid'.

The campaign seeks to address issues related to racial segregation and discrimination within the corporate context, and believes a broader focus on equal opportunity in society is needed, in addition to ideals such as empowerment and employment equity.

Naspers/Media24 were once considered the bastion of Afrikanerdom. For years Media24 titles such as Volksblad and Oostelig, preached racial segregation and vehemently supported the National Party regime. Although the company began to transform following PW Botha's tricameral parliament, efforts to escape the past have merely lent credence to claims that the Media24 is still practicing a form of petty apartheid. While Die Burger remains a title mostly for whites and coloured "people of mixed descent", titles such as City Press and City Vision are targeted exclusively at a black market.

"Without equal opportunity, ordinary South African's are stuck in their jobs, unable to move up the corporate ladder, and although some new faces are being appointed to boardrooms, the creation of new elites prevents mobility. The country still suffers from widespread unemployment caused as a result of the denial of basic human rights, opportunities which should be available to all, according to merit and ability, are instead being awarded under a perverse rephrasing of apartheid. Some companies have merely shifted their human resources to the right. Let's not make skin colour the basis for our country's development." says David Robert Lewis, spokesperson for the campaign.

"An invisible barrier exists and I challenge anyone to cross the line separating black from white," added Lewis. With no attempt being made to break down the racial categories and classification systems produced by Apartheid's social engineers, Media24 stands accused of racism and discrimination.Recently the group tried to gag the Alternative Media Forum from publishing incriminating evidence, related in part to Media24 involvement and activities during apartheid, and a court case is still pending.

FOR THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA FORUM PO BOX 4398, CAPE TOWN 8000

Did MIH Naspers (MEDIA24) apply for TRC amnesty?

2006-09-14T14:01:00.000+02:00

While the Independent Group participated in the TRC hearings and made a substantial contribution to the Truth hearings, it would appear from a cursory reading of the TRC website, that neither Johnnic nor Naspers (Media24) bothered with the Truth. Does this mean, South Africa's media houses have gotten off scot free? Are we all falling into apartheid denial? More on Naspers's possible TRC contraventions later.

Alternative Media Forum

2006-07-27T14:52:00.000+02:00

This is the text of an address given to the "Alternative Media Forum" at Community House, last night, 26 July, 2006. Although mainly symbolic, and a rather small gathering, I thank everybody who attended for their support and look forward to the next opportunity to give a public reading. Follow this link!

FACT SHEET: Naspers

2006-07-24T14:27:00.000+02:00

72.7% of its revenue from South Africa. Primary listing on JSE as Naspers (NPN) and secondary as Naspers/MIHL on Nasdaq (ticker NPSN) and Amsterdam stock exchange.

Operations in Sub-Saharan Africa, Greece, Cyprus, the Netherlands, the United States, Thailand and China.

Electronic Media
The electronic media segment comprises pay-television, internet and related technology activities and is operated principally through MIH Holdings. MIH Holdings owns or operates pay-television and internet subscriber platforms in Africa, Greece, Cyprus, Thailand and China. This segment contributed approximately 65.7% to Naspers’ total revenue and 74.6% of operating profit in fiscal 2005.

Pay TV
South Africa -- Multichoice
Sub-Saharan Africa -- Multichoice
Greece & Cyprus -- Netmed
Technology -- Irdeto and Entriq

Internet
Africa -- Mweb (100% owned by Naspers)
South Africa -- Mweb and Tiscali (100%)
Thailand -- MWeb (100% owned by Naspers)
China -- Tencent (46.5% interest in Tencent Holdings Limited, the operator of an instant messaging platform in China called QQ. Decreased to 36.1% after listing on Hong Kong.)

Print Media
Media24 encompasses the newspaper and magazine publishing and printing interests of Naspers. It also includes the internet activities of Media24 Digital. Media24 is the largest publisher of magazines, one of the largest publishers of newspapers and the largest printer and distributor of magazines and related products in Africa.

Via Afrika is a leading African book publisher, seller and distributor of innovative and quality reading, learning, listening, and viewing products in various formats. Naspers incorporated Via Afrika and Educor into the larger Media24 group during fiscal 2005. Educor is a leading provider of private education in South Africa. It offers face-to-face full-time, part-time and block release programs, as well as distance learning education and training programs. The print media segment contributed approximately 34.3% to Naspers’ total revenue and 27.2% to operating profit in fiscal 2005.

Newspapers, Magazines, Printing
Newspapers & Magazines -- Media24
Printing & Distribution -- Paarl Media
China Newspaper -- 9.9% of Beijing Media Corporation a media company principally engaged in the sale of advertising space for the Beijing Youth Daily, listed in Hong Kong Stock.
Brazil Magazines -- Abril (30%)

Books and Education
Publishers & Agents -- Via Afrika
Trade & Distribution -- Via Afrika
Private Education -- Educor

50% interest in religious publishing and retail group Lux Verbi/Sybel Media.

Transformation
Limited Share schemes, restricted to Mnet and Naspers' local holdings.

A board that reflects a black minority interest, and not the demographics of the country.

Senior management dominated by "white" males.

Only 25% women in management positions.

MEDIA24's Anti-Semitism and Intolerance towards Muslims

2006-06-03T21:48:00.000+02:00

AFTER working for no less than two months for MEDIA24, South Africa's biggest media house, (INM is running a close second in this country), it has become abundently clear that the company's policy towards those who do not belong to the Nederduits Gereformede Kerk (NGK) is one of intolerance, prejudice and exclusion.

A brief about the Hand of Fatima exhibition of Islamic Art on at the BoKaap museum in Cape Town, thrown-out due to lack of relevence to readers of a community paper in Grassy Park. An interview with Robbie Jansen (and his views on the recent SAMA Jazz awards) disgarded and trashed due to his connection with HIS PEOPLE. A slavery exhibition at IZIKO that explores issues such as slave memory, not worth the trouble for MEDIA24s editors. There seems no end to the level of bullshit in an organisation that claims to put people first.

Why am I able to write at all? Well for one, I was employed as a page-sub, (Got to find some way to pay the rent). Two, I actually have credentials in the local media community, having written and worked for amongst other things, SOUTH, NEW NATION, GRASSROOTS and the CAPE TIMES). How does this kind of blatent prejudice compare to INMs Anglocentricism? Well, I do take my hat off to a company capable of given INM a run for their money.

Then again, if you're reading this in Brazil, where MEDIA24 have just acquired a 30 percent share in a national magazine company, I would be running scared. If you're Catholic your views are as likely to be disregarded as Protestant evangelism alike. The NGK, which sporned a noxious philosophy known as Apartheid, now seems intent on segragating the world into new racial categories driven by the blindness of those LSMs, as the demographics of hatred and prejudice prevails.

Lets give MEDIA24 and INM what they both deserve, a lesson in liberation theology, as we wage battle for the freedoms granted us by the constitution and bill of rights.

INDYBay International

2006-05-04T10:14:00.000+02:00

WHILE local branches of Indymedia have much to account for in the fight for media freedom, sometimes things don't work out as planned. If you're having trouble getting the story out, your voice heard, or simply being censored, even within progressive organisations, try out INDYBay International http://www.indybay.org/international/

INDYBay International, started by the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center is a non-commercial, democratic collective of bay area independent media makers and media outlets, and serves as the local organizing unit of the global Indymedia network.

Tell us about yourself

2006-04-27T18:04:00.000+02:00

The Size Issue wants to know whose been reading us over the past six months. If you are a regular visitor to this blog please drop us a message by posting a comment on what you would like to see here. That way we will know if our audience are live humans and not merely robots trolling the net for clues as to why supersized media groups continue to influence the news.

Media Group's shortcomings noted by Truth Commission

2006-04-13T13:30:00.000+02:00

In a startling submission to South Africa's TRC, the Independent Group has acknowledged shortcomings in its corporate culture due in part to the system of racial segregation known as apartheid. The Size Issue has extracted some of this verbatim material already in the public domain, in the interests of a broader debate about ongoing media transformation.

According to a former editor of the Argus, the company's character and operations, were tainted by the fact that it was "almost exclusively white, male WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant), certainly Western-orientated." However, this fault has to be seen in the light of history:

"That was our heritage, that was our system. That's where the newspapers started. They started, just like all alternative newspapers start, with a purpose, a political purpose, and their purpose was to put the views of the English settlers at that time, I am talking about the English press, and its audience was virtually male, white, English-speaking for a hundred years, perhaps more than a hundred years. In the last 70 years, they became commercial newspapers."

"Why were there no women editors? The simple reason was society dictated it. There were no all-round woman journalists. It wasn't that the newspapers kept them out. There weren't any trained in society. Women didn't work that much. You were again a victim or a lax instrument of history. And my answer on women editors was: because it takes 25 years even to get into line for a major editorship."

"You can start your own newspaper if you want, but if you want to run one of the big ones, it takes 25 years at least before you could be in line for it, because it requires that amount of experience and seniority to be put in charge. Not quite so today, but that was the formula of corporate newspapers."

"So there is no doubt the accusation is true, if there is an accusation, that we were always white male and our audience was white male, but for the last 50 years, because of the weakness of the Afrikaans press, The Star had more Afrikaans readers in the cities than the Transvaler, and more black readers in the city than the Sowetan, and it had a higher proportion of Indian and coloured readers than any other race group. So the paper had a large audience, but its base remained the same. My own view is that our newspapers, compared with any other institutions, were way ahead in catering for other than sectional interests, both in content and staffing. "

"Thirty or 25 years ago when I was appointed an editor, the principles were: you were not to pander to any sectional interest. It was the only real briefing you had. These are basics. The next basic is this. The accusation is that we are Western-orientated. It is absolutely natural and I don't think it is anything to apologise for. It happens that the Western liberal press is virtually the only free press in history and on earth. There isn't any other. "

"And the principles of the liberal Western press are ones that have moved through to all other societies. We all aspire to those principles of independence and freedom of expression. It is this very press which reports criticisms of themselves. So I think, if there is an accusation that we are liberal, that doesn't require defence. It is a fact of life. And it is probably preferable to any other ideology."

What he said of women editors has applied with equal force to the question why there were no black editors.

Saturday Argus and Sunday Argus editor Jon Hobday looks at another aspect of the company culture: "My impression of the Argus Company was that it was a very conservative company. It paid conservatively. It took to innovation conservatively. It was a slow-moving company. To try to class us in the category of pioneers and pace-setters is a mistake. It was not the nature of the company. It was conservative economically, it was conservative in every way. It was an establishment company run by establishment people. And very successfully over the years. So it would be wrong for us to claim to have set the pace. "

"That is not to say we did nothing. We certainly made efforts, many editors were very conscious of it, valiant efforts and quite successful ones. I think many of the journalists you see around at the top of the pile today came through, as white journalists did, through the Argus Company mill and are what they are today because the Argus Company (now Independent Newspapers) trained them."

Jon Hobday highlighted another feature of Argus Company culture, the relationship between management and editors: "There was a definite hands-off approach. Management was management and editorial was editorial, and the twain did not meet. It was a clear line. If management did feel constrained to contribute, it would be done in the most circumspect civil, non-aggressive way. The concept and perception that Oppenheimer phoned up and told editors what to write is absolute b...t. That is the last thing in the world he would have done. He never did it. I am not aware of any manager who ever delivered that kind of dictum, not at all, ever."

"Managements were by nature conservative and sometimes were less than defiant when it
came to authority. Their instinct was to be good boys and not to interfere with the business. It was left to editors to cause the trouble. But I think, in fairness to Argus managements, there were some brave managers. I mean Slater and Miller were principled men who stood fairly sternly against apartheid. They understood what the political role of a newspaper was. And they supported editors and let editors get on with the job. And I don't know any editors who did not get on with that job. But I must say managers were not political animals, generally."

Andrew Drysdale, retired editor of The Argus, gives this impression of the company's stance: "Now if the suggestion is that we were party in any way to the apartheid structures or the dictates of the National Party or sympathetic to the National Party in any way, I would refute that in the strongest terms. In fact, it would be a despicable accusation. Not only would it be despicable, it would be totally untrue. I know of not a single Argus/Independent newspaper which had to contend with the tyranny of apartheid - and I use the word tyranny advisedly, because it was a tyranny - not a single title that I am aware of supported the National Party on a single issue that purported to strengthen apartheid or the violation of human rights in any shape or form. I think we were all committed to quite the reverse. In fact, none of us would have been appointed to editorial chairs had we held views that were not contrary to the views of apartheid. "

"It is worth recording the mission statement of the Argus Company, which is in black and white what the Argus Company stood for. Apart from the desire to make reasonable profits, I think in the broader context the mission statement recorded that 'we should try to place South Africa's advancement and wellbeing before all else. To this end, to adhere to independent, honest and responsible standards that do not pander to personal or sectional interests, but are concerned solely with the public interest. To further the cause of racial co-operation and to pursue a balanced policy calculated to enhance the welfare and progress of all sections of the population. Aim to avoid discrimination against any members of the public or members of the Argus Company staff on the grounds of race, colour, creed or sex, and to help staff who were disadvantaged by observing the company's code of employment practice. "

"Well, elements of that kind I would suggest fly in the face of any view that we consorted with the apostles of apartheid. So I think that, if one examines one's own role in these things over a long period of time - over the decades - we strove as human beings and as journalists and as editors to do the right thing by all the people of this country. And finally the company will be judged by the record. "

"The record lies within the bound volumes of our newspapers. The content of those newspapers, the reporting of events based on what we knew at the time and philosophically in terms of what we wrote in our editorials. What it was we believed was right for the country and so on. So I think the record must speak for itself and I don't think an apology is needed and I would not apologise for the efforts we put in under conditions of great travail, of enormous pressures, of great threats and anxiety and anguish, which we all experienced personally, and that was also the hardships endured by very brave staff throughout the country, brave and very young people who were exposed to great danger, not only from the state but from opponents of the state. Life-threatening situations many times. I think that the courage of our journalists, far from being called in question, ought to be commended, saluted."

Independent Newspaper Group colluded with Apartheid

2006-04-01T10:17:00.000+02:00

In a submission to South Africa's Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the Independent Newspaper Group, one of the world's largest publishers of print media, has admitted that it failed in the area of human rights and colluded with the apartheid state. Arguing that "the commercial nature of the company limited its political role in exposing apartheid abuses" the Group outlined its shortcomings that include:

* A concentration on white political rivalries, resulting in black political aspirations and the doings of the liberation movements being insufficiently covered by the company's newspapers.

* Insufficient effort made to circumvent restrictions imposed by apartheid and other legislation.

* Recruitment of black staff had began too late, proceeded too slowly. This was accordingly discriminatory.

* White perceptions monopolised news judgements on most of the company's papers. On black newspapers in the group, the reverse applied.

* The contribution of black editorial staff was not recognised and rewarded timeously.

* The Press Council, recognised by the company, was established to prevent government control of the press, but it was unrepresentative of the population.

* Liberal and liberationist journalists followed different agendas and pursued clashing goals. The company failed to resolve this dilemma.

* The company's gradualist anti-apartheid editorial policies caused perceptions of collusion with apartheid.

* The growth of the alternative press showed the company had to some extent lost touch with the oppressed masses.

* In a climate of intensive State propaganda, contacts with liberation movements were insufficient.

* Petty apartheid was practised on company premises. Opposition could have been stronger.

* Discriminatory practises were followed in reporting accidents and crime.

* Black editors were in some cases treated paternalistically. Some black staff were paid less with worse facilities.

* The company's handling of the strike at Post Transvaal was insensitive, causing bitterness.

* Insufficient efforts were made by the company to provide proper training for black staff.

The submission in the form of a document lodged with the TRC makes for some interesting reading is accessed from a SA government website:

http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/submit/inc.htm

Independent's Irish Clan Bake riles Scottish South Africans

2006-03-26T15:22:00.000+02:00

AS if the Independent' Group's open support for British Imperialism and the Rhodes legacy wasn't offensive enough, the Cape Times has begun to advertorialise Irish expansionism, while promoting St Patricks Day in Cape Town of all places. Next we'll be having sermons about Rhodesia from the inner sanctum of white power -- Newspaper House.

South Africans of Scots descent have over two hundred years of history in the city and may feel a little peeved, but then I guess we all have a lot to thank British colonialism -- like the defeat of the Dutch at the Battle of Blaauberg, ( Jan 1806) and the introduction of English. The root of the problem, isn't so much the attempt by the O'Reilly clan to establish a beach-head in the city via the Eurocape Development, (surely nothing more than a crass attempt to brand Rhodes and enveigle Mandela while protecting Anglo-Irish interests) but rather the spirit in which the development has occured.

While the Cape Times celebrates its 130 year birthday, the Size Issue must ask: Rhodesian-style development to whose benefit? The only conclusion, we can come up with, why, the O'Reilly clan of course!

Since Robert The Bruce and Malcolm III would probably be turning in their graves to see Cape Town turn into a suburb of Ireland, we will be covering the revival of South African Scotch history and looking for support to boot out the English!

Straw dogs of the Media

2006-03-25T15:36:00.000+02:00

Independent in hock to Bank of Ireland

CONTRARY to popular perception, and a mythology perpetuated by INM Chief Operating Officer Gavin O'Reilly, less than a third of the international media conglomorate is actually owned by the O'Reilly Family. The amazing piece of data gleaned from compulsory share listings shows that Group CE SirAnthony O'Reilly owns just 26.20% of the company and is in hock to the Bank of Ireland Asset Management, which owns 10.11%.

Other major shareholders are:
Marathon Asset Mgmt Ltd 5.99%
Fidelity Investments 4.99%
The Capital Group Companies 4.78%
Denis O'Brien 3.01%
Other Dirs 1.28%

Source: www.advfn.com

My Beef with Big Media -- Ted Turner

2006-03-17T12:35:00.000+02:00

In a Washington Monthly article, former Media Mogul, Ted Turner complains about a "Triple Blight" facing the world and inflicted by none other than "Supersized Media", the kind of media we've been talking about for the past year. According to Turner, big media equals "loss of quality, loss of localism, and the loss of democratic debate." Attacking the forces of consolidation and media mergers of the past, Turner says: "This is a fight about freedom--the freedom of independent entrepreneurs to start and run a media business, and the freedom of citizens to get news, information, and entertainment from a wide variety of sources, at least some of which are truly independent and not run by people facing the pressure of quarterly earnings reports. No one should underestimate the danger. Big media companies want to eliminate all ownership limits. With the removal of these limits, immense media power will pass into the hands of a very few corporations and individuals. How government protects big media--and shuts out upstarts like me."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html

Go for it Ted. The Size Issue is watching upstarts like you!

EDITORIAL: South Africa's Corporate Media

2006-03-17T11:24:00.000+02:00

THE corporatisation of South Africa's media proceeds apace. With the SAB Miller aquisition of the Rhodes University Journalism Department, and Clear Channel's subversion of INM, what could be next. A Coca Cola buyout of Grocott's Mail? A Royal Dutch Shell kickback in the Mail and Guardian? A GM Foods giant, Monsanto sponsorship of the UCT school of media studies?

While there is nothing inherently wrong with sponsorship of the press per se, (how else do publishers make money?) the confluence of corporate and media interests in recent years and the surreptious onslaught of soft money, backroom deals and public handshakes, is purturbing to say the least. How independent is the Sunday Independent? Who really owns the Cape Times? How do we know that the public is not being manipulated by corporate and industrial interests? Then there is tabloidism, despite what Anton Herber of Wits Journalism thinks, tabloids are troublesome, often sexist and racist to boot.

If print media is having a bad day, spare a thought for Rupurt Murdoch's television soapie "Scandal" about a small newspaper. The programme is having a knock-off effect on publishers as local copy begins to lose all sense of reality and the national debate reaches off into the bizarre intricacies of the Zuma trial. Are readers' tastes changing because of the new media or in spite of it?

The Size Issue intends keeping its readers informed and up to date on the corporate transformation and slow erosion of South Africa's free press.

Union Strength Key in Media Sector Transformation

2006-03-10T12:27:00.000+02:00

THE transformation of South Africa's highly concentrated media sector and the introduction of diversity and a living wage can only occur if workers stand together. In a predominantly foreign-owned and globalised environment, local media unions have, until now, had little leverage to effect decisions made by independent cartel bosses. That is until the Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers' Union (CEPPAWU) stepped into the fray. The union has accepted that writers, journalists and editors, in fact anybody involved in print media, have a right to join the union.

Where does this leave the defunct South African Union of Journalists (SAUJ),
the impotent Media Workers Association of South Africa (MWASA), and the predominantly whites-only South African Freelancers Association (SAFREA)? On the side lines it would seem.

CONTACT CEPPAWU AND GET ORGANISED
CEPPAWU (Cape) +27+21+447 7326
CEPPAWU (Natal): 0333943469
CEPPAWU (Gauteng): + 27 + 11 + 331-6861
Or Email: mailto:secretariat@ceppwawu.org.za

INM Gang of 15

2006-02-19T17:02:00.000+02:00

Here is the so-called "International Advisory Board" membership list:
Ben Bradlee (Chairman)
Dr A J F O'Reilly
Kenneth Clarke
David Dinkins
Ivan Fallon
Jakes Gerwell
Ted Harris
Liam Healy
Shaun Johnson
Eric Molobi
Brian Mulroney
Wiseman Nkuhlu
Anthony Sampson
Sir Wilson Whineray
Andrew Young

They stand accused of complicity in the concentration of global media and creation of a press cartel that routinely bribes politicians and makes payoffs to political parties in exchange for lucrative concessions!

ENRON OF THE MEDIA: How Independent News and Media got cosy with its sponsors, and compromised itself in the quest for profit

2006-02-19T16:10:00.000+02:00

THE publishers of well-known titles such as Star, Cape Argus, Cape Times and the Daily Voice have become embroiled in a controversy over sponsor representation. How did Independent News and Media (INM), go from being just a publishing house to a representative for various corporate interests that included high value sports brands like David Beckham, Jonty Rhodes, and Michael Jordan?

Not only would the group’s quest for profit lead to a strategic compromise, but its lust for power would result in the sacrifice of journalistic independence and eventually open support and funding for a variety of political parties around the world, including the Republican Party and the Re-Elect George W Bush campaign.

At the face of it, INM editorial is sponsor free. “The Independent” newspaper title available in various guises around the world, is one of the endearing legacies of the Independent Group. Internationally “the group” is known as Independent News and Media PLC, the outright owners of an awe-inspiring 165 titles. Locally the group trades as Independent News and Media (South Africa) Pty LTD with an incredible 67% control of the English-language press in the country.

Group executives like to boast about their joint venture with Conde Nast Magazines — “we own 100% of Conde Nast Independent” — a subsidiary that publishes local editions of well known titles GQ, Glamour, and House and Leisure. However a shady deal in 2001 with Clear Channel Communications (CCC), has begun to unravel under public scrutiny. Clear Channel and its subsidiary Clear Channel Entertainment (CCE) until recently, owned the SFX Group — SFX Entertainment a New York-based promoter and producer of live entertainment events, (acquired in a deal valued at $4.4 billion in 2000), as well as SFX Sports “a leading talent management and marketing agency” that “represents over 500 of the world's elite professional athletes”. In addition until a month ago, they owned Katz Media, a New York advertising firm, the resulting combination arguably one of the largest sports, entertainment and media promotions companies the world has ever seen.

How much of the copy published in Independent's 165 plus titles over the past five years originated from Clear Channel's very own public relations machine, before its controversial sports and entertainment division was offloaded as part of a “spin” company listed on NYSE in December 2005, and called ironically CCE Spinco? How much of the front page of the Sunday Independent, for example, was up for sale?

Was it possible for brand managers, in particular those responsible for grooming the worlds emerging sports stars and entertainers — former international tennis champ Andre Agassi and Olympian Seb Coe, amongst others — to manipulate public opinion, even going so far as writing copy and supplying editorial normally written by senior journalists? Until very recently the journalistic divide between news and entertainment, sports and fantasy was upheld by an industry code of ethics, at least until INM got into bed with Clear Channel Communications in a quixotic move that included a 49% BEE South Africa share ownership component Merafe.

Not only would INM buy into Clear Channel Communications, to form Clear Channel Independent (CCI), Merafe's holding company, but in so doing, its actions excused the controversial role being played by CCE in the sports and entertainment industry, in particular its reliance on sponsor representation. Just a compromise perhaps, in the quest for world domination? Clear Channel owned 1 200 radio stations in America and was under fire from critics, and a public tired of the endless repetition of “adult light contemporary easy listening”, across radio playlists, for starters. Not something that seemingly affected South African audiences, since CCI, its South African subsidiary, was prevented from acquiring a stake in national radio by broadcast regulator ICASA.

Alarm bells would begin to ring not only on Wall St, but on internet forums like Salon.Com, where the first public discussions and debates concerning Clear Channel's credibility as an organisation began: “How was it possible for a relative newcomer to become the dominant player in radio, billboards and internet news channels,” the bulletin board community wanted to know? Clear Channel has a presence in 65 countries and owns or operates at least a million billboards worldwide. While usually sober news organisations like Reuters were being outmanoeuvred by digital newcomers like Wired News (acquired by Lycos from Wired Ventures in 1998) a host of novel wire services and mobile operations were being set up by Clear Channel Internet and Independent Online which between them, owned or had interests in at least 120 web portals.

Since the local newspaper industry was in bed with the same company responsible for managing rock stars like Madonna and owning a piece of Broadway, (Clear Channel owns the touring rights to the Broadway productions of The Lion King, Hairspray, and a chunk of The Producers, and operates theatre venues like London's Lyceum), it was no surprise when it turned out that Independent's titles were carrying advertorial pieces vetted and written by Hollywood executives and even headline stories about sports stars produced by the sports and entertainment industry and their sponsors.

According to one newsroom source, material was regularly gleaned from Clear Channel and its sponsors and “conflicts of interest were simply swept under the carpet.” When asked how much copy was supplied by the entertainment industry, and in particular companies owned by Clear Channel, INM issued a “no comment”. The corporate alliance with sponsor representation in particular SFX/Spinco had simply gone unchecked. While editorial appointees were being made by industry, INM staff ceased to question their assumptions about audience tastes, or to do research on local publishing standards.

Meanwhile on the net, stories like “Radio's Big Bully”, “One big Happy Channel?” And “Suit: Clear Channel is an illegal monopoly”, by Eric Boehlert were being posted. CCI continued pushing the envelope in South Africa, via outdoor media, street billboards and even had concessions for Johannesburg and Cape Town international airports.

+++++++++++++

INDEPENDENT Newspapers, was founded by William Martin Murphy in Dublin, in 1904. The company initially published a morning paper, with a strong emphasis on an independent editorial policy. As the company grew it added an evening and a Sunday title. Over the next few decades, the company would establish itself as the leading Irish owned national newspaper company and in the 1960s became involved in regional newspapers in Ireland.

In 1973, Anthony O'Reilly bought a 28 % stake in Dublin-based Independent Newspapers, later renamed Independent News and Media PLC for £1m, with the Murphy family as principal shareholder. Under O'Reilly's direction the company would develop a more global and diversified strategy, expanding into newspapers, radio and even advertising in Australia, New Zealand and later South Africa.

In March 1994, shortly before South Africa's democratic election, the group acquired a 35% stake in the Argus Group formerly owned by the South African Associated Newspapers, for an undisclosed sum, "a radical transformation had begun in the newspaper industry," records Gerald Shaw in his informal history of the Cape Times. In 1995 Independent increased their Argus stake to 57%. "Before the deal could go through, [Independent] had to satisfy the Competition Board that the continued existence of the Cape Times and the continued editorial independence of both the Cape Times and [renamed] Cape Argus were not in jeopardy, and that the need of all sections of the community served by these newspapers to have a 'meaningful voice' in the running of them would be respected."

Shaw observed wryly that "as far as the Competition Board saw it, a monopoly system already existed among English language newspapers at the Cape, and a change of control of the Cape Times and Argus from [Anglo-JCI] to Independent Newspapers would not alter the situation in the city." Concerns such as these, about the increasing concentration of media in the country and in particular foreign ownership of media, would only surface after Shaw's book was published in 2000.

By 1998 Independent had increased its Argus stake to 75% and in 1999 had bought out minority shareholders, to gain an effective 100% control of South African household reading matter, and the predominantly English press. While eyes were focused upon the machinations of Independent's print media acquisitions, especially a tug 'o war with Advance Conde Nast — a company founded in 1909 that today operates 96 magazines in 18 foreign countries, employs 5000 people, and claims a readership of 120 million, (according to the Columbia Journalism Review Conde Nast is owned outright by Advance Newspapers) — analysts failed to see that shareholders attention was being diverted away from problems associated with the creation of a new entity known as Clear Channel Independent (CCI).

+++++++++++++

IN MARCH 2001 Clear Channel and Independent went into business together and bought control of Corpcom, an innocuous sounding, multinational asset management firm that was heavily invested locally, in “property and outdoor billboard concessions”, in a deal worth potentially billions. Financially, it seemed like a match made in heaven, as foreign capital flowed into a South Africa hungry for currency. However, not only would the purchase of Corpcom, turn out to compromise press freedom in exchange for profits, but it would begin to jeopardise the day-to-day operation of one of the world largest publishing houses, while entangling its BEE South African partners, Merafe.

How did we get here? The compromise in the pursuit of profit had produced some strange bed-partners. For example, CCE Spinco have inherited a company accused of sponsoring a Republican free-for-all, with lavish banquets for state politicians, while its former owners, Clear Channel, sponsored pro-war demonstrations. The events following 911, had not only raised questions about George W Bush's political agenda, but had brought an end to the notion of corporate neutrality. (See “Clear Channel's big, stinking deregulation mess, 2003”.) It was in the atmosphere of disgust over the antics of Halliburton and the Enron Scandal, that Salon.Com would ring the alarm bells about media accountability in a series of investigative reports by medic critic Eric Boehlert exposing Clear Channel’s hubris and leading to the collapse of the sport and entertainment empire that had infiltrated INM, transforming the press from the ”fourth estate” into just another arm of business – The Enron of the Media.

Not only was Clear Channel considered a corporate bully, but as Salon.Com put it, “a little-noticed media giant has quietly taken over the country's radio and concert industries.” The debacle was reported by South Africa's own online periodical The Media, and other web-sites.

In “Curbing Citizen Kane”, Tim Spira, The Media's correspondent in New York, wrote of Clear Channel's shenanigans — the company had “donated some
$175 000 to Republican Party causes in the past two years” and the Texas-based organisation had “recently hired as its full-time political lobbyist a former chief communications advisor to a prominent Republican senator”

Clear Channel it turned out, not only effectively controlled the US radio market, but had a cosy relationship with George W Bush. The company's founder, L. Lowry Mays, according to G R Anderson Jnr writing in the Minneapolis/St. Paul City Pages, was a close friend of the Bush family and had maintained professional and political ties with both presidents. When George W. was the governor of Texas, Mays was appointed to the state's technology council in 1996; he later contributed$51 000 to Bush's re-election campaign in 1998. Between 2000 and 2002, entities associated with Clear Channel — through lobby and special interest funding, soft money, and individual contributions — forked over at least $1 million to political campaigns, with 75 percent going to Republican candidates.

Back home the O'Reilly family were doing the same thing, associating themselves with the Mandela Rhodes Foundation and funding initiatives to secure their interests on the continent.

Clear Channel's acquisition of the SFX Group — SFX Entertainment, the dominant concert-venue owner and touring promoter in the states, and SFX Sports — was merely leverage to add to an ever-increasing corporate pie. Compared to INM's own assets and manipulations, which included ownership of Australia's APN (12 daily and 100 non-daily newspapers, and some 129 radio stations across Australia and New Zealand) this latest venture was small fry. The urge to merge a global portfolio into a supersized empire — with a fight literally to the last company standing — would begin to take on a bit of the absurd drama of a 1970s Washington Post expose drawn by Mad Magazine. The hostile takeovers would literally make guest appearances and product placement shots on “All the Presidents Men”, a hit movie, starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.

Reaction to the INM Clear Channel debacle would be one of incredulity followed by gradual acceptance that something terribly wrong was occurring in a media company that represented corporate interests. Conflicts however, were bound to emerge and the empire, come what may, would have to be trimmed down.

+++++++++++++

INM print some 4.5 million individual newspapers every week. It takes the same amount of paper to explain why its connection to George W Bush and the religious right is problematic in South Africa. While braggadocio and sheer chutspah in publishing is considered par for the course, media moguls feel the strange need to bulk up, supersizing their assets as well as their liabilities. Today's globalised “hypermedia” however, necessitates even-handed discussion, and stretches across every format including mobile phones and computer desktops.

Lowry Mays, founder and chairman of Clear Channel and Tony O'Reilly had explained their deal thus: “Africa was the only continent in which Clear Channel did not operate, and Corpcom, with its powerful market position in South Africa and other African countries, its proven record and its strong management, offers the best possible way in.”

After disposing 60% of its property assets to Standard Bank, Corpcom was renamed Clear Channel Independent. The result would not only be a clash of corporate cultures but a veritable train-smash of conflicting interests and political affiliations as a print media empire took on new dimensions bolstered by advertising incentives, billboard profits and propelled by a few well-healed personalities, whose own characters would eventually rub-off on content.

The Clear Channel-Condenast-Independent Media Complex, to give it another name, was no glamour girl wedded to a poster boy with a rock station, but had turned overnight into something like the Bride of Chuckie, or as Anderson Jnr put it, “an evil empire”. Clear Channel and to a lesser degree its Independent and Conde Nast partners are now widely perceived, as Jeff Perlstein, of San Francisco’s Media Alliance suggests: “the poster child for what's wrong with a hyper-consolidated media environment”. Perlstein like most media critics contends free-market government policies are really to blame, not the corporations themselves. However such rubric ignores notions such as freedom of choice and accountability.

As Anderson Jnr, accurately observed, “there are many other facets of Clear Channel's corporate personality”. While the new media complex shopped around for newspapers and magazine titles that could be bought, not with money but with the new currency of networked corporations, he also opined “the group continues to branch out, forging a presence in everything from theatre to photography exhibits to halftime shows at sporting events. Clear Channel even has a syndication arm that produces the rightwing conservative Rush Limbaugh Show.”

According to City Pages, after 911, a memo containing a list of suggested songs that station managers “might want to consider too sensitive for listeners” was circulated. This author has seen such a list that includes The Clash, "Rock the Casbah" and U2, "Sunday Bloody Sunday". During the controversy that followed, the company claimed that the list reflected the opinions of the executives who compiled it and did not “constitute an official company blacklist.”

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a number of Clear Channel stations sponsored "Support the Troops" rallies in America that critics called “naked pro-war endorsements of the Bush administration” while anti-war protestors took to the streets in Cape Town and Johannesburg. Then Clear Channel made the mistake of “banning” outrageous shock-jock Howard Stern. In early 2004, Howard Stern, the self-proclaimed “King of All Media”, was dropped from six Clear Channel stations on the grounds of profane language. Stern countered that the real reason he was dropped is that he turned against George W. Bush just as the presidential campaign was kicking into high gear. Stern, who was once a Bush supporter, had allegedly repeatedly railed against the president because of the war in Iraq, and against FCC chairman Michael Powell, a Bush appointee who had levied hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines against stations that carried Stern.

“I wanna ram that fist right up Clear Channel Broadcasting, I wanna ram that fist up the religious right... For all those radio stations that fired me: F-em! You fired me? We fired you!" proclaimed Stern in December 2005 announcing his popular show's switch to Sirius Satellite Radio. Anxious to downplay their relationship with a company that had earlier blacklisted C&W act Dixie Chicks, for making antiwar statements, along with a 150 strong list that included John Lennon's Imagine and Cat Steven's Peace Train, (both pacifist anthems) Independent and local Clear Channel executivesset about creating a series of financial firewalls between each other.

+++++++++++++

THE details surrounding Clear Channel's rise and fall in late 2005 are legendary. After years spent amassing its media empire the company was unravelling — Clear Channel had moved vertically in its acquisitions, buying up companies in the media/entertainment supply chain — but was now unbundling its profitable entertainment divisions and considering listing its outdoor advertising arm that ironically included CCI . However, the real watershed moment came when Clear Channel signed off on their one time promotions company, Katz Media and the SFX Group. SFX had according to Anderson Jnr, “really been a corporate raider in the booking business”, buying such longstanding promotions companies as Bill Graham Presents. By 2000 it was staging more than 26 000 events annually and then CCC had bought SFX for $4.4 billion, and folded it into Clear Channel Entertainment.

Then the INM Clear Channel conflict had begun. From what we can gather, the SFX Sports Group, liked to characterise itself as nothing more than a “talent management and marketing agency that represented 500 professional athletes”. Clear Channel Entertainment produced television shows like popular Smallville and represented live entertainers like Howard Stern.

While Stern was mouthing off about his former employers, Clear Channel in an effort to avoid mounting pressure from irate consumers, media critics, regulators and even bloggers, announced they would be “spinning off” their entertainment division along with the SFX Group. CCE Spinco, would, to some degree, be a separately tradable entity on Wall St.

Clear Channel’s "spin" and its forthcoming “rebranding” may have stalled an international campaign over media ethics — the increasingly fuzzy boundaries separating shady promoters and sponsor representatives from ethical journalism and the media industry. The Clear Channel INM relationship with sponsor representatives however, is by no means over. Three Clear Channel directors are still directors of CCE Spinco. What's more, a Clear Channel chief financial officer will serve as chairman making this supersized media divorce something of an extra-marital affair.

In fact, the company continues to do business with INM, its partners in South Africa. SFX/Spinco, “the live entertainment division of Clear Channel Communications" appeared on the NYSE ticker on Dec. 22, 2005, followed by a branding campaign that “will attempt to create a new identity”.

[copyleft 2006, some rights reserved, please request permission to reprint: ethnopunk@yahoo.co.uk]

Clear Channel's Organogram Papering over the Truth?

2006-01-19T13:45:00.000+02:00

Check the organogram of Clear Channel's relationship with Independent News & Media PLC apparently via a Clear Channel Outdoor, company listed on the NYSE.

http://www.ccirsa.com/flash%20sites/organogram.html

Looks good doesn't it? Perhaps they've forgotten something? Clear Channel have an 80% stake in Clear Channel Outdoor! Now take a look at all the other Clear Channel corporate entities and join the dots. What do you get? One very large public relations company that just happens to own a couple of newspapers and a few radio and television stations.

For more about the brand that is causing all the trouble, tune into THE SIZE ISSUE, you heard it hear first, right?

Clear Channel Independent, mixing business with sport in a new game that compromises traditional press values?

2006-01-09T13:10:00.000+02:00

WHILE the Independent Group's stake in Clear Channel, a new “networked corporation of the future” appears to compromise the integrity of the press -- the partnership skirts South Africa's weak regulations on media concentration and cross-ownership of media -- there is little stopping such coercion. True, the minority holding in one of the worlds biggest conglomerates is really symbolic of a much larger problem that affects the way South Africans view the news. What used to be a small print media company, has branched out into a broadcast behemoth that literally controls the image we associate with major sports stars, Hollywood actors, radio shock jocks and even musicians.

Clear Channel's hold on radio playlists in America forced outrageous talk-show host Howard Stern to cower in submission to a "campaign of decency" in 2004, while the company boasts that "business and sport will be forever linked" because of its ability to broker deals and shape the careers of sports stars, many of whom are actually clients via its SFX sports divisions, participating in games that are televised, and rebroadcast via its own networks around the world.

In 2003 Clear Channel Independent, de facto owners of 135 daily newspaper titles, and over 1200 radio and television stations, dropped top country & western act Dixie Chicks from radio playlists for "making anti-war statements" and banned 200 peace-related songs including "Imagine" by John Lennon. The strange attempt to limit the ensuing damage and public outcry by creating the ironically named spin company, CCE Spinco, (listed on the NYSE in December 2005) that will ostensibly hold Clear Channel's entertainment assets, has not dampened criticism of the media company. Clear Channel executives sit on both corporate boards and still control day-to-day decisions.

From advertising sales to the control of information and content, literally everything that one sees, hears or touches these days is invariably the result of decisions made by Clear Channel Independent executives who populate the new world of supersized media. They control the lives of the Rolling Stones, U2, Madonna, Sting, Cher and NSYNC. The minutia of audience details, ticket sales, subscriptions and pay-per-view television have all become part and parcel of the new “media as entertainment” within a conglomerate that offers up possibilities that only a decade ago were undreamt of chimera's unavailable in either print or tabloid form.

Take the new digital media of the Internet, Clear Channel's IOL relationship is a partnership that packages news online and the result onto mobile phones. Clear Channel Radio from CCE Internet will be available soon along with Independent's own advertising that boosts the synergies created by mergers and acquisitions. Some of Independent's clients include golf legends, Greg Norman, Tom Lehman, and John Daly. Soccer celebrities like David Beckham, Gary Lineker, Michael Owen, David Gower, Nasser Hussain, Jonah Lomu, and Alan Shearer. In nearly every venture the common thread seems to be new synergies that are created by combining business with news and news with sports and entertainment.

It is no surprise then that Clear Channel is one of the biggest billboard operators in Southern Africa with 75% of the local concession. Not only does it hold advertising concessions for Johannesburg and Cape Town International Airports but is responsible for beaming over a billion targetted messages every year to global travellers.

With accusations of monopolistic behaviour and corporate media cartels driving Clear Channel even further, to list itself as "three separate publically tradeable companies" on the New York Stock Exchange, the distinction between one company and the next is purely on paper. In reality deals and partnerships, affiliations and associations, have created one of the world's largest media companies. Clear Channel Independent, arguably the Enron of the Media, is essentially one company available in several different shades of grey and a variety of combinations found in 65 different countries and everywhere else in the world via Internet.

Whichever way one looks at the equation, the fact remains that Independent News & Media PLC, has become one of South Africa's largest print media cartels, with 67% of the English language market. Not content with print, and 100% ownership of Conde Nast magazines, (GQ, Glamour, Elle, House and Garden) it owns 40.3 percent of a billboard company and that billboard company just happens to be one of the largest billboard, advertising, and promotions companies in the world, with over 1 million displays internationally.

Attempts to distance itself from the inevitable conclusion drawn by media analysts that a serious conflict of interest has occurred between being the bearer of information and the provider of advertising, special interests, artist representation and even access to well-known theatre venues, such as London's Lyceum Theatre, has failed. A campaign to cover-up several relationships that exist between parent company and its offspring is starting to unravel upon closer examination and media spin from Spinco is unlikely to dampen such criticism.

Take Clear Channel's holdings in Australia which are via Australian Provincial Newspapers (APN), Australian Radio Network (ARN) and Independent News & Media (INM), controlled by the O'Reilly family. The same news feeds, client lists and special interests supplying South Africa's Argus and Cape Times, invariably end up being shared across the columns of a broadcast and print media cartel that has concentrated ownership over every medium, including television to the extent that it has become impossible to separate the Siamese sextuplets of print, radio, television, internet, mobile telephony and advertising media without killing off the new networked company.

While South Africa has laws governing the cross-ownership of media and ICASA has sought to restrict Clear Channel Independent from owning radio and television assets, there are loopholes. The new technology allows the streaming or radio and television onto mobile phones circumventing regulations governing the media but not the medium. Furthermore, there is nothing restricting the concentration of media in the hands of the few. Essentially Clear Channel Independent represent a new global elite, dominated by the religious right, that has shown scant regard for local interests choosing instead to serve Washington and George W Bush's “sense of decency”. Where is the outrage that news media is being steadily turned into a sport in which media moguls own rugby teams, in a game where stars rely on the networked corporation for their careers? Out on a mobile lunch it would seem.

[David Robert Lewis is a writer whose work has appeared in Thisday, Cape Times, South, Vrye Weekblad and SL magazine.]

BREAKING NEWS: Clear Channel and CCE Spinco still in bed.

2006-01-06T14:04:00.000+02:00

The much awaited trial seperation of Clear Channel Communications and CCE Spinco, the new entertainment spin company, appears like so many divorces, to be only on paper. While "Clear Channel" may not own any CCE Spinco common stock and CCE Spinco does not own any shares of "Clear Channel. Three Clear Channel directors are still directors of CCE Spinco, what's more, a Clear Channel chief financial officer will serve as chairman of the board of directors of CCE Spinco, making this supersized media divorce something of an extra-marital affair.

Clear Channel Independent Monopoly Draws Criticism

2005-12-27T13:28:00.000+02:00

Clear Channel Independent is now widely seen as the "poster child" for what's wrong with a hyper-consolidated media environment, Jeff Perlstein, Media Alliance co-founder, contends free-market government policies are to blame when it comes to broadcast radio.

EGREGIOUS examples of the company's behavior are part and parcel of water cooler conversations, hundreds of email lists and websites, and regular coverage by the independent media. Just ask people and they'll recite the litany for you: the banning of the Dixie Chicks and more than 200 peace-related songs including "Imagine" by John Lennon; the many station-sponsored pro-war rallies; the intense union busting; automated on-air programming and the train wreck in Minot, North Dakota; and the "derelict rodeo roundup".

The so-called "derelict rodeo roundup" was pioneered in Spring of 2003 by a Clear Channel station in Cincinnati, in which employees give homeless people a $20 bill, a 40 ounce bottle of malt liquor, and a bus ticket to the edge of town. Unconscionable behavior like this has fanned the flames of public outrage and provided the opportunity for media activists to build powerful coalition with mediaworkers' unions, peace and justice networks, artists, youth organizers, attorneys, hip hop activists, children's advocates, women's rights groups, and more.

Not only did these coalitions succeed in using Clear Channel as a lightning rod to mobilize unprecedented numbers against further deregulation by the FCC, (America's version of ICASA) but they're following up to build on the momentum at the local and national levels. Community-driven campaigns in New York City and the SF Bay Area are providing powerful models for engaging communities in holding corporate media accountable to their needs and ensuring local voices are a part of the mix. The Turn Off the Radio Campaign in New York is a media boycott taking place each Thursday for 12 hours, in which participants refrain from listening to radio and TV stations that broadcast a disproportionate share of offensive material.

The Community Coalition for Media Accountability (CCMA) in the Bay Area worked with youth-led organizations to issue a report rigorously documenting how local Clear Channel station KMEL-FM's non-music coverage was dominated by crime, drugs, and violence. Founded by the Youth Media Council and Media Alliance, the CCMA has followed up to build broad coalition and win a number of concessions from the region's #1 hip hop and R&B station. The coalition is actively encouraging allies in cities around the country to seize this model and adapt it in ways that make sense and are powerful.

On the national level, Clear Channel is facing a rapidly growing number of legal challenges, Congressional hearings and investigations, and targetted campaigns by a variety of unions. Congressional co-sponsorship and public support is growing for Senator Feingold's bill targetting Clear Channel's brutal domination of the radio and concert industries.

Even the corporate media couldn’t ignore the growing public outrage and organized pressure by media activists. Clear Channel's behavior and the policies that created this monster were finally picked up by The Wall Street Journal and a handful of other Big Media outlets.

At this writing, the grassroots momentum for accountability and transformation of corporate media structures continues to build, and Clear Channel is worried - the company recently hired a top Wall Street PR firm to deal with their "image problem". Please continue to bolster the work of alternative media and support true media justice

MORE ON THIS STORY: http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/17.html

OTHER RESOURCES ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP http://www.mediaaccess.org/programs/diversity/

Clear Channel Independent Spins out of Control with no clear conscience at all!

2005-12-22T12:52:00.000+02:00

IN AN effort to deflect mounting pressure from irate consumers, media critics, regulators and blogs such as this one, Clear Channel Communications aka Clear Channel Independent have announced the creation of, that's right, a "spin" company. CCE Spinco, will be a seperately tradeable entity on Wall St, and will inherit Clear Channel's Entertainment division.

Only time can tell whether or not the new Clear Channel "spin" avoids controversy over media ethics, and especially the increasingly fuzzy boundaries seperating shady promoters and unethical marketers from ethical journalism and the media industry. Spinco, "the live entertainment division of Clear Channel Communications" was set to appear on the NYSE ticker on Dec. 22, followed by a branding campaign that will attempt to create a new identity under the Live Nation banner.

According to Billboard, Live Nation refers to the "community of fans, artists, and employees who share the same passions for the live concert experience." Further details on the new name were expected to be announced yesterday. Live Nation will apparently be the largest concert promotion company in the world, under the direction of president/CEO Michael Rapino, however the company could already be DOA dead on arrival, without much support from a public tired of scandal.

If this all just sounds like yet another market ploy and media stunt by Clear Channel, one of the world's biggest spin companies, then you're probably right. Until the network is completely broken up into seperate units, the strange relationship between Clear Channel and Independent News and Media PLC, one of the worlds largest media monopolies, and owners of Conde Nast Magazines will remain. Expect more spin control on this one. You have been warned. Pay your bills. Stop shafting the little man, and grow-up for a change.

NO CLEAR CONSCIENCE: Howard Stern bashes Clear Channel Independent Radio

2005-12-19T13:20:00.000+02:00

"I wanna ram that fist right up [radio station owner] Clear Channel Broadcasting, I wanna ram that fist up the religious right... For all those radio stations that fired me: F-em! You fired me? We fired you!" crowed Howard Stern before a crowd of thousands of people who rallied on Friday to applaud the "shock jock"After years of raging against government regulations on obscenity, Stern broadcast his last show on public airwaves before heading to unregulated satellite radio.

"We broke every rule known to radio and mankind and I'm proud of that," Stern bellowed to supporters from an outdoor stage erected in a closed-off midtown Manhattan street.
"And I don't think this ride is over yet. Let the freedom bell be rung, and let it be rung by a stripper!

"We beat then at their own game, we figured out how to do it," he said. "Change the rules, break the chains, the last of a dying breed."

Stern rocked the broadcasting world in October 2004 when he signed a five-year contract with Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. reportedly valued at $500 million.

Stern has two entire channels with Sirius, which is not regulated by the US Federal Communications Commission and charges subscribers $13 a month for more than 100 channels.
The 51-year-old New Yorker, who starts broadcasting on Sirius on January 9, has complained for years that fear of censorship and more fines imposed by the FCC for his crude humor had sapped his creativity. A fine of nearly $500,000 levied in April 2004 on the broadcaster carrying his show brought Stern's career-fine total to $2.5 million.

MORE FROM http://www.mp3.com/stories/2707.html

Clear Channel MNET, the new network advantage

2005-12-13T13:29:00.000+02:00

CLEAR Channel Entertainment, one of the Clear Channel "group of companies" is fast becoming a provider of programming and content to South Africa's subscription pay-television channel MNET. Client relationships include distribution deals, co-productions and licenced entertainment via Clear Channel Entertainment Television (CCETV).

The following is a partial listing of recent programs CCETV has produced:

Documentaries and Scripted Shows A&E Biography: Rod Stewart A&E Biography: Andre Agassi A&E Biography: Playing Vegas A&amp;amp;E Biography: Cher A&E Biography: Deborah Harry A&E Biography: Cass Elliott A&E Biography: Pat Benatar A&E Biography: Pete Rose A&E Biography: Bill Graham, Rock Impresario The Need For Speed Underground 2 World Launch Party (Spike TV) MTV’s Fast Enuff Challenge Presented by Dodge (MTV) Bode On The Bus (OLN) Glory In Black & White: The Story of the 1966 NCAA Champions (CBS) The Bear: The Legend of Coach Paul Bryant (CBS) Fists of Freedom (HBO) When It Was A Game I, II & III (HBO) Pistol Pete: The Life and Times of Pete Maravich (CBS) Hitler’s Pawn (HBO) The Curse of the Bambino (HBO)

Entertainment & Music Programming America’s Party FOX New Year’s Eve Extravaganza (FOX) Blind Boys of Alabama (PBS/DVD) Tom Joyner Show (TV1) Tom Joyner Show DVDs Trevor Horn (DVD) John Mayer & Dido (Sony/Bryant Park) Coors Light Mountain Jam (HD Net) Busta Rymes (DVD)

Live Sports Event Production & Programming ATP Tennis (Fox Sports Net & OLN) Pro Cycling Tour (OLN)/(ABC) Boston Marathon (OLN) Michael Jordan Celebrity Golf Invitational (NBC) The Spirit International Amateur Golf Championship (TGC) NCAA Final Four Film (Home Video) Topspin Kids Show, featuring Roddick’s My Ride (CBS)

International Distribution US Open Tennis Championships The Spirit International Amateur Golf Championship Pro Cycling Tour ATP Tennis

Clear Channel Entertainment, a leading producer and marketer of live entertainment events is a subsidiary of Clear Channel Communications (NYSE:CCU), a global leader in the out-of-home advertising industry. Clear Channel Entertainment currently owns, operates and/or exclusively books approximately 130 live entertainment venues, in North America and internationally. In 2003, 69 million people attended approximately 32,000 events promoted and/or produced by the company, including live music events; Broadway, West End and touring theatrical shows; family entertainment shows; museum exhibitions, and specialized sports and motor sports events. In addition, the company’s independently operated athlete representation business, SFX, provides management, marketing and financial consulting services to many of the world’s top professional athletes. Clear Channel Entertainment operates throughout North America, Europe, and Australia.

MEDIA CARTEL FACT SHEET: SFX Sports Group

2005-12-08T13:46:00.000+02:00

Clear Channel Independent Sports

"SFX Sports Group"

The SFX Sports Group, SFX, agents for David Beckham, one of the world's most recognisable sports stars, is a leading talent management and marketing agency, representing over 500 of the world’s elite professional athletes across a spectrum of sports, as well as sports broadcasters, journalists and photographers. A subsidiary of media company, Clear Channel Communications, the group is split between North American and European agencies. Arn Tellem, Chief Executive Officer, SFX Sports, serves on the "Playing for Peace" advisory board that sponsors basketball events for the underprivileged in South Africa.

SFX Sports "North America"

SFX Baseball
The "premier full-service baseball agency in the world". Currently represents most major leaguers and claims to have " negotiated more contract dollars than any other professional baseball representation firm."

SFX Football
Apparently "provides full service representation" for its clients. "With over 25 years of experience in the sports representation field" claims to be the most established and trusted football representation firms in the world. SFX Football has developed strong relationships with NFL owners, general managers, and coaches from every NFL team. In doing so, the company is "best positioned to maximize our athletes' contract dollars, whether for drafted rookies or established veterans." A creative approach to contracts has enabled SFX Football to negotiate over $300 million worth of contracts between 1998 and 2000.

SFX Golf
One of the "leading golf management and marketing firms", specializing in talent representation, event management and corporate consultation. The SFX "talent division" represents some of the world's most renowned golfers, including Greg Norman, Tom Lehman, John Daly, and Juli Inkster. While the "Event Management division" owns and operates some of golf's finest events, ranging from the Bayer Advantage Challenge to the ADT Skills Challenge. "From event creation to sponsorship sales to television production, SFX Golf's Event Management has a team of experts with years of experience managing first-class events."

Without even a sense of irony, SFX claims: "Business and golf will forever be linked because of the game's ability to open doors, close deals, increase brand exposure and entertain key clients. A sport with a superlative image and ability to reach key decision-makers, golf's importance within the corporate arena cannot be underestimated. Let SFX's Consulting Group help you maximize the benefits of golf marketing."

SFX Soccer

SFX Sports Group represents sports and media personalities and has a large number of clients including athletes, broadcasters and media executives.
In addition, SFX Sports Group Europe has 7 FA Licensed Football Agents:
Simon Bayliff
John Holmes
Chiel Dekker
Neil Fewings
Struan Marshall
Paul Martin
Tony Stephens

Client list includes:
Steven Gerrard
Emile Heskey
Gary Lineker
Michael Owen
David Gower
Nasser Hussain
Gabby Logan
David Seaman
Dwight Yorke
Alan Hansen
Robbie Keane
Jonah Lomu
Alan Shearer

SFX Tennis
With the acquisition of ProServ in 1999, the SFX Sports Group acquired the tennis industry leader in client representation, client marketing, event management and tennis television production. "ProServ began with a handshake agreement between tennis legends Stan Smith, Arthur Ashe and founder/chairman Donald Dell."

Since its inception in 1970, ProServ and now SFX Tennis has represented hundreds of professional tennis players worldwide. Some of these clients include Jimmy Connors, Stefan Edberg, Michael Stich, Yannick Noah, Pam Shriver, Gabriella Sabatini, and Patrick Rafter.
SFX has continued this tradition in recent years, representing the sport's top stars with clients such as Andre Agassi, Andy Roddick, Mardy Fish, Bob and Mike Bryan, Nicolas Massu, Justine Henin-Hardenne, and Vera Zvonareva."

information extracted from http://www.sfxsports.com/ a Clear Channel subsidiary

SFX Sports Europe

Rugby
SFX has a proud stable of a number of the UK’s elite rugby talent including World Cup winners Jonny Wilkinson, Martin Johnson, Lawrence Dallaglio, Danny Grewcock, Ben Kay, Simon Shaw, Andrew Gomarsall and Kyran Bracken as well as England players Mark Cueto, Charlie Hodgson, Ollie Barkley, Jamie Noon and Mathew Tait.
The Rugby Division also represents British and Irish Lions and Scotland's number 8 Simon Taylor and instrumental Welsh centre Gavin Henson and winger Shane Williams
Additionally, the Rugby Division manages a number of former internationals including the world cup winning Neil Back and Kenny Logan.

Cricket
SFX represents a number of elite cricketers including 5 former England Test Captains, David Gower, Mike Atherton, Nasser Hussain, Mike Brearley and Chris Cowdrey as well as current England fast-bowler Matthew Hoggard and legendary cricket icons Dickie Bird and Jonathan Agnew

Other
SFX also manages the careers of a number of high profile athletes in other sports including Olympians, Steve Backley, Roger Black, Seb Coe, Steph Cook, Liz McColgan, Ben Ainslie, and jockey Richard Dunwoody

MEDIA CONCENTRATION: the trend to worldwide domination

2005-12-08T12:27:00.000+02:00

THE past two decades have witnessed the number of major corporations that dominate television, movies, music, radio, cable, publishing and the Internet dwindle from 50 to less than two dozen — with power concentrated especially in 10 huge conglomerates. The past two decades have witnessed the number of major corporations that dominate television, movies, music, radio, cable, publishing and the Internet dwindle from 50 to less than two dozen, with much of the control concentrated in fewer than 10 massive conglomerates. While enriching investors, these changes have endangered democracy – which demands an informed citizenry with access to variety of voices and viewpoints.

This shift has been aided and abetted by government policies that explicitly reward a cartel of industry giants at the expense of the public interest. While the media moguls crow about "deregulation," the last thing they want is genuine market competition. History shows that the relaxation of media ownership rules always leads to more market consolidation and less competition. Greased by extensive campaign contributions and pressured by intensive lobbying, Washington policymakers have abandoned antitrust enforcement and pursued policies to encourage greater media concentration.

Extracted from THE FREE PRESS an excellent resource for media activism

Also, check out the Free Press interactive media ownership chart which has a full breakdown of the largest media giants today.

CLEAR CHANNEL INDEPENDENT WHATEVER THE BRAND

RATHER belated news of the supposed "Breakup of Clear Channel", Independent's media partner into "three separate publicly traded companies" in the USA. According to Mediaweek the move in May this year, happened in order to maximize the value of the company "signaling the end of the consolidation cycle of the last decade" however the corporate event is really nothing more than a rebranding exercise and comes in the wake of criticism of monopolistic behaviour, ironically "between the entertainment and radio divisions".

Is this an an attempt to forestall a global campaign being waged against the supersized company? A cynical manipulation of trade rules that have no meaning in a globalised world? Only time can tell, as the issue of global media concentration continues to hold the public in awe.

SOURCE: Clear Channel Breaking Up, May 02, 2005 By Katy Bachman, Mediaweek

Independent Giant turning to Mobile Communications

2005-12-01T15:52:00.000+02:00

INDEPENDENT Online and ViaMedia have joined forces so that one of the world's biggest media cartels can deliver mobile news service, IOL USSD, to South African cell phone users. Every cell phone owner - no matter which handset is used - can access a wide-ranging offering of information by dialling *120*IOL#. Browsing through the easy-to-use menu, users gain access to the latest news and lotto numbers as well as sport, weather, business and entertainment information. What makes IOL USSD so devious is the way it skirts laws governing the cross-ownership of media, by supplying content and services to approximately 18 million cell phone owners in the country.

The new wireless service uses a technology called Unstructured Supplementary Services Data (USSD), which allows simple, text-based communication similar to the Short Message Service (SMS), but on a much more advanced level. Whether a contract subscriber or pre-paid user, everybody can use IOL USSD, even though it is currently only available with Vodacom and MTN, Cell C will be coming on board soon. Users get charged per minute or per part of a minute like for a phone call. Vodacom users pay R1.50 per minute. This service is free on MTN for a limited period only. There is no subscription process or contract required to get IOL USSD on the phone.

The two companies behind IOL USSD, Independent Online and ViaMedia, complement one another according to Independent's Czars and will "ensure that this new mobile service is a huge success."

As the blurring of boundaries between services, content and news media in an electronic world without borders, proceeds apace, consumers are bound to ask whether the deal increases media concentration or simply locks them into the Independent Cartel and limited choice?

Meanwhile it turns out that Clear Channel, Independent's partner, which operates over 1,120 radio and 19 television stations in the U.S., announced as early as 2001 that it was acquiring Enigma Digital, a company that owns a number of Internet radio channels. Financial details of the acquisition were not announced. Clear Channel said it will incorporate Enigma’s KNAC.COM, Grooveradio.Com, Acaza.com and LuxuriaMusic.com Internet channels into its Clear Channel Internet Group.

With the acquisition, Bob Ezrin, Chairman and CEO of Enigma Digital, has been named Vice Chairman of CCIG. Michael Abrams, President of Enigma Digital, has been named CCIG's President of Operations. Both Ezrin and Abrams will report to Kevin Mayer, Chairman and CEO of CCIG.

"The Enigma Digital acquisition underscores CCIG's commitment to aggressively leverage our existing consumer businesses in the interactive universe," stated Kevin Mayer, Chairman of Clear Channel Internet Group. "I am particularly excited about the addition of Bob Ezrin, a world-renowned producer and music visionary, and Michael Abrams, a talented manager and strategist to my executive team."

Michael Abrams, Clear Channel Internet Group's president of operations said, "My priorities will be to integrate our robust technology infrastructure into CCIG's broad array of businesses and to increase the quality of our content and the efficiency of our operations."

Source: http://www.streamingmedia.com/

Who controls what we watch, read and listen to?

2005-11-24T14:57:00.000+02:00

In today's age of supersized media concentration and ownership of media by an elite, activists need to prepare themselves for global domination. Read all about Mediachannel.org, the global network for democratic media. Including amazing facts about media ownership and big media. A great resource for media activists with an up-to-date media ownership monitor. Lots of threads on the changing landscape of media ownership rules as well as links to affiliates like Prometheus Radio Project and Media Access Project,

ICASA position on cross-media ownership

2005-11-15T13:30:00.000+02:00

The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) has proposed the following amendments to South Africa's broadcasting act, in a position paper that tackles the problem of cross-media ownership:

The Review of Ownership and Control
of Broadcasting Services and Existing
Commercial Sound Broadcasting
Licences
Position Paper
13 January 2004

Section 50: Limitations on Cross-Media Control of Commercial Broadcasting Services

10. The Authority proposes that section 50(2)(a) be amended to read as follows:
“No person who controls a newspaper may acquire or retain [a financial] control in both a [radio] commercial sound and [TV] a commercial television broadcasting licence”.

11. The Authority proposes that section 50(2)(b) be amended to read as follows:
“No person who is in a position to control a newspaper may be in a position to control a [radio] sound or a television broadcasting licence in an area where the newspaper has an average weekly ABC circulation of [20%] 25% of the total newspaper [readership] circulation in the area if the licence area of the [radio] sound or television broadcasting licence overlaps substantially with the said circulation area of the newspaper

12. The Authority proposes that section 50(2)(bA) be inserted as follows:
Where the relevant broadcast coverage area is controlled in a single city, the newspaper
circulation figures shall be calculated relative to that city.

13. The Authority proposes that section 50(2)(bB) be inserted as follows:
Where the broadcast coverage area covers a number of cities or towns, the newspaper circulation figures shall be calculated relative to the three largest cities or towns within the relevant broadcast coverage area.

14. The Authority proposes that section 50(2)(bC) be inserted as follows:
Where the broadcast coverage area is national, the national newspaper circulation figures shall be used.

THE SIZE ISSUE would like to know whether similar principles will be applied to media portals and commercial web-sites, and whether parliament will tackle the tricky issue of cartels? In Cape Town alone, the two major dailies are owned by the same company. Without taking into account ownership of tabloids, The Independent Group already owns a substantial part of South Africa's media-space and continues to censor debate and opinion!

Independent Group in contravention of telecommunications regulations?

2005-11-09T12:26:00.000+02:00

THE Independent Group's interest in Clear Channel and other affiliates could contravene sections of South Africa's telecommunication regulations laws. The regulations implemented by the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA), the regulator of telecommunications and broadcasting sectors, sets a precedent for the limitation of media ownership and particularly the cross-ownership of media.

Clear Channel is an international radio, television and billboard company and its local affiliate, Clear Channel Independent is 40.3% owned by Independent Media PLC, the holding company of the so-called "Independent Group". The telecommunications act of 1996 contains some exciting news for would-be media barons. The no-holds barred Regulations in Respect of the Limitation of Ownership and Control of Telecommunication Services in Terms of Section 52, has this to say: "No person who holds an ownership interest or control interest in a licensee in any telecommunications service category in a concentrated market, or an affiliate of such person, shall hold an ownership interest or control interest in another licensee in the same telecommunications service category."

The emphasis on alleviating pressure in concentrated markets is an important one -- the question whether a newspaper company should own a billboard company that owns radio and television stations available in South Africa, "in the same telecommunications service category" is intriguing in the absence of licencing. Newspapers are registered but not licensed. But such distinctions have been rendered meaningless in the information age. Having already crossed the boundary seperating print from electronic media, should Independent now also be allowed to enter mobile telephony as some form of service provider? There seems no end to the Independent expansion.

Does the IOL/Clear Channel/Independent deal and other deals within the group contravene the act, vicariously perhaps? It's a question that media pundits are simply too afraid to answer for fear of offending CEO Gavin O'Reilly. Groundbreaking cross-media deals that blur traditional lines seperating various categories of media are the signature tune of Independent's new chief. The question is, do they contravene the laws as they stand? And if not, should our laws be updated to address problems within the sector? There is already a very real threat of an overconcentration of media in the hands of the few, without the addition of new media convergence such as internet and mobile telephony -- South Africa's mass media is owned by just a few individuals, a virtual elite, who operate without any checks and balances to prevent manipulation of public opinion and the censorship of news.

Calls for an end to the Independent Media cartel are growing as increasingly the issue of supersized media is being taken up by journalism and media departments around the country. Will nothing less than a partial or total dismantling of the so-called Independent Group and restrictions on other conglomorates to achieve the diversity and freedom of debate necessary in a growing democracy, be needed? The Size Issue will follow this breaking story as government moves to end the cartel that is censoring debate within the newsroom.

[If you support this campaign being waged by the SIZE ISSUE, then help us by commenting and adding your voice on the blogger comment forms below.]

Government calls for an end to newsroom censorship amidst concerns of cartel behaviour

2005-11-07T11:05:00.000+02:00

THE South African government has called for an end to newsroom censorship amidst an increasing concentration of media ownership amongst a few large media houses. Despite this, South Africa is still locked into a virtual monopoly that secretes itself behind boardrooms and private clubs. The result-- a stifling of competition and debate, and the practice of censorship within the industry at large. Instead of transparency, openness and media diversity, the ungamely suppression of opinion.

Do one or two large cartels controlling public opinion and distribution of news and information make for diversity and a healthy media? In an address to the elite South African National Editors Forum, Joel Netshitenzhe, the CEO of the Government Communication and Information System, outlined what he saw as an obstacle to media development: " There can be no full realisation of media freedom in a situation of growing conglomeration of ownership and homogenisation of content. One consequence of such conglomeration is that newsrooms are being cut down; research capacity is being decimated; and lifting from the wires as distinct from real investigative work is becoming the norm."

Continuing with an often repeated theme, Netshitenzhe added: "There can be no real media freedom without diversity in ownership of the media. Especially for the poor, media freedom should be understood to include their participation not merely as consumers, but also as producers of news and analysis. " Despite such criticism, very little has been done to break apart the cartels that run South Africa. Even though as Netshitenzhe admits, such behaviour results in both overt censorship and other forms of censorship, for instance, self-censorship.

"There can be no real media freedom under conditions of unique manifestations of censorship — self-censorship and what I would refer to as “peer censorship” — the tendency among journalists themselves to seek to dictate to others how they should cover issues. In the recent past — and this has changed somewhat — anyone who dared to acknowledge progress that the government was making would be condemned by peers as a lap dog."

Without legislation tackling the problem of media concentration, and especially cross-ownership of media, Netshitenzhe is likely to remain, just that, a government lap-dog with his tongue in the corporate dog-dish.

MEDIA GOSPELS: Get to know your leader!

2005-10-27T12:18:00.000+02:00

Gavin O'Reilly

"Media Cartel Leader"

Gavin O'Reilly, 37, has been Group Chief Operating Officer of Independent News & Media PLC (INM) since December 2001. He was appointed to the APN Media Board in 2004 as a non-executive director. He joined the international media group in 1993 and has held various roles. A graduate of Georgetown University School of Business in Washington DC, he formerly worked in London for Advertising group DDB Needham. In the late 80s, he also worked in Stockbroking in London and Asia. He is Chairman of Dromoland Castle Hotel and serves on the board of Independent News & Media PLC, Ashford Castle Hotel, Norkom Technologies, and numerous charitable foundations including the Ireland Funds.

In 2002 Gavin O'Reilly, as group chief operating officer, was paid a total of €440,000. In spite of this, he could not afford to pay a couple of hundred rands for a measly book review commissioned by his company.

APN News & Media is one of the largest and fastest-growing media companies in Australasia. The company operates a broad portfolio of businesses across five countries. APN listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in 1992 and listed on the New Zealand Exchange in June 2004.

Publishing
APN publishes 23 daily and more than 100 non-daily newspapers across Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, its newspapers service the fastest growing region in the country: Queensland and northern New South Wales. In New Zealand, APN operates the country's largest metropolitan daily, The New Zealand Herald, as well as a number of top-ranking regional and community newspapers and mass market magazines. APN also operates major printing businesses, as well as a market leading security plastics company.

Radio
APN is Australasia's largest radio broadcaster, with investments in 12 metropolitan radio stations in Australia and 116 radio stations in New Zealand. Its radio division, the Australian Radio Network (ARN), is owned in an equal joint venture with Clear Channel Communications, the most successful radio broadcaster in the United States. ARN's Australian stations have strong positions in the important 25-54 demographic through the Mix and Classic Hits programming streams. The New Zealand stations include the ratings leaders in each of the important markets of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.

Outdoor Advertising
APN is Australia's market leader in the dynamic and fast-growing outdoor advertising sector, with the leading operators in each of the major outdoor categories: street furniture, posters, transit, and supersites. APN also operates outdoor businesses in New Zealand, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The company's major outdoor businesses are Transit [Buspak and Taximedia], Supersites [Cody Outdoor, Look Outdoor (New Zealand), Rainbow (Indonesia) and Kurnia (Malaysia)], Posters [Tribe] and Street Furniture [Adshel].

Source: APN website, Irish Examiner

Media Development and Diversity Agency not enough.

2005-10-20T12:58:00.000+02:00

While creation of a "Media Development and Diversity Agency" is encouraging, not enough is being done by government to combat media cartels and in particular to prevent cross-ownership of media. Should sports teams be allowed to own newspapers, and should newspapers own radio and television stations and vice versa? Questions such as these are being raised in every journalism department across the country as a campaign to liberalise South Africa's media by moving it out of the stone age of monopoly capitalism gets under way.

What concerns activists is the way events are being driven by a media that increasingly sees the news as a form of entertainment and public opinion as superfluous to the spin-doctoring and salesmenship of media companies that no longer reflect reality but rather generate a new reality of their own. Increasingly companies like the Independent Group, are driving a war in the Middle East that hinges upon globalisation and labelling opposition as "agents of El Queada" as the world becomes dominated by one or two supersized news corporations.

South Africa has no legislation that specifically targets cross-ownership, and in theory there is nothing preventing radio and television from moving into print and vice versa. With advances in online electronic technology, media companies are starting to look more like mobile phone companies as convergence narrows down our choices instead of opening up the gates to alternative sources of information. Agencies like the Media Development and Diversity Agency, need to tackle structural problems such as these, as much as questions of ownership and development, if we are to remain a country in which freedom of expression is a possiblity.

LINKS http://www.mdda.org.za/

Stopping the Independent Media Cartel -- here's what you can do.

2005-10-16T12:10:00.000+02:00

WHILE individual titles within the Independent stable have every right to exist, the supersized cartel of ownership that colludes to prevent competition and which restricts our freedom of speech, needs to be done away with. Here's what you can do to prevent the game of monopoly media.

1) Call your local MEC or representative to demand laws against cross-ownership of media. Newspaper owners should be restricted from owning radio and television stations, as well as sports teams and service providers, and vice versa.

2) Form small study groups to discuss alternative media and media cartels; should corporations be allowed to own more than one daily newspaper per metropole? Start a newspaper of your own, or invest in projects that do.

3) Cancel your subscriptions to Independent Newspaper titles and when asked why, let the sales people know that you intend the cancellation as a form of protest against cartel behaviour.

4) If you are an advertisor, find alternative outlets for your advertising, let Independent-CondeNast know what you think of monopolies in the media and they way cartels push up the cost of advertising.

5) Refuse to use Independent Online services -- many mobile contracts include prepackaged feed from Independent USSD.

6) Refuse to accept money or sponsorship from Independent. The group has a habit of buying off its opposition, either via way of outright purchases or bribes in the form of lucrative sponsorships, all seemingly in the "interests of press freedom". This is just one of the many ruses to get you to sell out, or to dilute your rights and freedoms as South Africans.

7) Check to see whether or not your radio and television services are owned by Clear Channel Independent or their affiliates. Demand alternative channels of information and public access to broadcasts that are locally produced and owned.

Submit your own suggestions or create your own Anti-Independent campaigns by posting to this blogsite...more information soon on prizes and giveaways.

MEDIA CARTEL FACT SHEET: IOL

2005-10-11T13:00:00.000+02:00

"Independent Online"

Apparently the "Biggest online news site in South Africa", with over 1 million "readers".

Rapid expansion into mobile news services with IOL USSD, a partnership with ViaMedia to provide content to 18 million mobile phone users.

Online media portal for 16 media titles:
http://www.busrep.co.za/
http://www.persfin.co.za/
http://www.tonight.co.za/
http://www.thestar.co.za/
http://www.capeargus.co.za/
http://www.capetimes.co.za/
http://www.dailynews.co.za/
http://www.themercury.co.za/
http://www.pretorianews.co.za/
http://www.thepost.co.za/
http://www.babynet.co.za/
http://www.sundaytribune.co.za/
http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/
http://www.tios.co.za/
http://www.isolezwe.co.za/
http://www.cellphonefun.co.za/

Online partnerships with Funnel.co.za, a search engine to compete with Google, Yahoo and Ananzi, controlling the way consumers search for news, information and products.

Expansion into Advertising Industry with an alliance with Falk eSolutions that "serves" advertising to various online publications and websites.

Supply of ringtones, screensavers, games and even tickets as Independent competes with traditional businesses for consumer spend.

The move from print into electronic media is disturbing to say the least. Not only is Independent competing with radio but recent advances in technology will create streaming audio and video, essentially supplementing television news services with similar breaks and feeds. What are the implications for local consumers as journalistic oversight is bypassed entirely as Independent starts to look more and more like a Mobile Phone company, and less like a Media Corporation?

New Age Media Moguls

2005-10-10T13:07:00.000+02:00

THE term "media baron" has always been synonymous with ownership of mass media. With the rise of supersized multinational media companies, however, the term no longer expresses the class status of those in control -- presiding over the billions of facts and countless opinions from large swathes of the globe which fall under their influence. The Independent Group's CEO Gavin O'Reilly, for example would not be a baron, if he had any say in the matter he would be a mogul. However, simply being a mogul or a tycoon does not express his current status. Take the fact that Clear Channel Communications Inc, the radio, television and advertising company upon which his fortune is based, is far, far greater.

If anything Gavin O' Reilly is a mandarin, a stooge like any other, responsible for doing the bidding of his colonial masters in Texas. Although Independent own 40.3 percent of Clear Channel South Africa, the minority share makes him a literal peasant when compared to the 60.7 stake of parent company Clear Channel Communications Inc. In a recent critique of the Texas-based multimedia conglomerate, Paul Krugman, a columnist for the New York Times, remarked on the cosy relationship between Clear Channel Vice President Tom Hicks and George W Bush. Is the blurring of the line between government and media cause for any concern? Are international relationships important in a nefarious world in which the boundaries between one corporation and the next no longer appear tangible?

To give an inkling as to the size of the problem, various agreements between MNET and Clear Channel allow the broadcasting of sports content drawn from Clear Channels subsidiaries supposedly in competition with each other. It is not out the bounds of reason to speculate that deals such as these, and other events, are no longer driving media, but rather that media, such as that generated by the Independent Group, is driving the same events in which they have shares, for example in the form of revenue from ticket sales.

Clear Channel owns music and theatre venues across Europe. Are there laws preventing a media company from owning a sports team, and a sports team from owning a television station and vice versa? The problem of cross-ownership of media has long perplexed critics who fear that notions such as objectivity and ethical standards of journalism are being lost in the pursuit of profit. What is there to stop a particular political or socio-economic agenda from propagating across the media spectrum? In theory, rights like freedom of expression allow for the transmission of ideas untrammelled by censorship.

Unfortunately, media all too often censors itself or acts to prevent particular information and knowledge, what Michel Foucault would term "subordinated knowledge" from infiltrating mainstream society. Alternative view-points and opinions are thus often excluded on the basis that such discussion merely represents a minority or syncretic view. The result is the prevalence of one school of thought over another, the dominance of one particular view of the world, along with the marginalisation and eventual suppression of alternative view points, modalities and expressions.

The way the market deals with this problem is to present media as a form of competition - "the marketplace of ideas" in which people are free to purchase their news, either via way of subscription, over-the-counter sales or free drop-sheets for the poor. The model works well in principle but in practice competition results in the stymieing of various forms of media, either because of over-competitive behaviour in the marketplace or the formation of cartels which in effect control the market.

There is no doubt that the Independent Group represent one such cartel. With over 50 percent ownership of the local press, and 67 percent ownership of the English press, they dominate the daily South African print media diet. It is ironic then, that the company should in turn be dominated in the world of radio and television, by another company, and yet its 40.3 percent stake in Clear Channel Independent proves that one can't be a leader in everything. Luckily there are other benefits to be had in forging such an alliance, and chief of which is the fact that this relationship opens doors to new relationships.

Clear Channel Independent has access to over 1 200 radio stations, 16 television stations and 1 million outdoor displays worldwide. This creates the base for news to travel from one continent to the next, thus backing up the companies already high profile stake in print media. The implications for press freedom are worrying and already a cause for concern. Take the old media trick of repeating an already disproven source of information, until the opinion is considered a fact? Or simply neglecting to carry both sides of a story? All just tools in the O'Reilly plan for world domination.

Lets take a journey from one unproven assertion printed by one of Independent's 135 newspapers to another. Not only do monopolies allow for such assertions to be reproduced across the globe, but the new media relationships created by Clear Channel Independent allow them to be repeated on radio and television, ad infinitum, under the direction of the same media company. In effect the entire notion of objectivity has gone for a loop, along with so-called Journalistic ethics, as Clear Channel Independent becomes the sole source of news and information for a world weary of alternative forms of media such as the internet.

FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC, IND, MNET, ETV all these channels of information are part of O'Reilly's expansion and "in the loop" that circles the world with the ever-increasing thrust of a one-size-fits-all, super-sized media cartel acting to the exclusion of all other forms of media. In effect there is no real competition, and where previously communist regimes censored at the point of production, capitalism and the marketplace has merely censored at the point of distribution. If one controls distribution, one control the market, which is why there is a growing revolt amongst the youth against these transparent attempts to manipulate public opinion.

Take radio playlists, the source of much frustration for musicians. Clear Channel Independent via its New Music Network and other channels, literally sorts hundreds of tracks into various genres, directly determining what can and what can't be played on over 1 200 stations and indirectly on countless more. Very often what one hears locally will already have been sorted elsewhere. Radio Stations import software and are serviced by the same organisations that tailor their product to conform to Clear Channel's emphasis on wholesome, adult contemporary light entertainment. The very epitome of "fun" designed by advertising companies to carefully blend-in without offending anyone. Write lyrics that actually say something, and you are bound to be shafted, as the Dixie Chicks found out to their dismay.

In 2003, Clear Channel Independent dropped the Dixie Chicks from their radio network for protesting the invasion of Iraq and the resulting war. The warning signs of an emerging corporate culture that distances itself from reality, the grassroots point of view, alternative opinion, mass-based popular culture and which instead propagates a "pop-lite" without any of the gristle, are all there. We have only to sit back and watch as Clear Channel Independent programming becomes our "way of life". With access to radio, television and satellite, print media begins to reflect a new reality, one that is conjured up and prepackaged in the halls of power, and presided over by a new class of conservative individual.

Take the sheer diversity of titles in the Independent stable - anything from women's fashion magazines, current affairs, high society and male vanity to the big bucks technology of Wired, and always a Clear Channel corporate representative there, to oversee matters. It is no wonder that the Texas-based corporation has been closely associated with George W Bush and in fact purportedly helped the Bush campaign in its narrow victory over the democrats.

What should be done about these global Cartels and media monopolies? Well for one, legislation to prevent cross-ownership of media would be welcome, as well as laws preventing the conglomoration of media in any one city. Why should the Independent Group be allowed to own more than one major daily newspaper in Cape Town? 16 titles in the Western Cape alone? Solutions need to take into consideration competition from other sources as well as the fact that in the world of television the national public broadcaster has three television channels, while the government is restricted by our democratic values from owning print media, at least in principle.

Should media be constrained within particular formats and genres? A newspaper company that owns media across the spectrum, for example, tabloids, magazines, knock 'n drops, telephone directories and advertising sheets quickly becomes a public nuisance as well as an impediment to freedom of speech. There is also an argument to be made, that online media content is rapidly becoming like radio and television. With the advent of mobile phones, personal communicators and handheld mobile computers, rules that apply to traditional media need to be given some forethought as we prepare for next generation technologies beyond the information age. In certain cases traditional rules need to be applied more evenly to prevent distortions developing within the media industry as a whole. Only then can we talk about a vibrant local media that includes aspects such as freedom of expression, competition and diversity.

David Robert Lewis

MEDIA CARTEL FACT SHEET: Clear Channel Independent

2005-10-08T12:46:00.000+02:00

"Clear Channel Independent"

Clear Channel Independent is a local subsidiary of media giant Clear Channel Communications Inc, a Texas-based company which owns at least 16 television stations, 1 200 radio stations and nearly 1 million outdoor displays in 65 countries.

Clear Channel operate over 220 radio stations in Australia, Mexico and New Zealand alone.

Clear Channel has a "branding relationship" with Kagiso Media, owners of Durban's East Coast Radio, via its Broadcast Architecture division.

Clear Channel Communications and its subsidiaries have been accused of denying airtime to artists, restricting playlists, pushing up the ticket prices of concerts and even organising pro-war demonstrations.

On March 19, 2003 Clear Channel sponsored a pro-war event attended by 20 000 people. Clear Channel's relationship with George W Bush is legendary and the network has been accused by Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, of having a "a cosy relationship that blurs the lines between government and media."

In 2003 Clear Channel dropped top country & western act Dixie Chicks from their playlists for "making anti-war statements" and banned 200 peace-related songs including"Imagine" by John Lennon.

In 2004 outspoken talkshow host Howard Stern was suspended from half-a dozen Clear Channel markets after he made various "indecent" statements that defied George W Bush's "campaign of decency" and his election promise to clean-up America.

Clear Channel Independent is 40.3% owned by the Independent Group, a multinational media company with holdings in the South African print media industry.

Clear Channel via its Entertainment division has a relationship with MNET and ETV and broadcasts sports programming such as the US Open Tennis Championship.

In 2001 Clear Channel via its "European Music Group" promoted 2 100 events, selling 11 million tickets throughout Europe and funnily enough is responsible for promoting Neil Diamond and Rod Stewart.

Clear Channel Entertainment produces and markets events in 9 countries to date: United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Italy.

Clear Channel wholly owns or operates over 130 music and theatre venues in 5 countries to date: USA, Canada, UK, Ireland and Sweden, and controls well-known venues like the Lyceum and Apollo.

Clear Channel dominates international playlists via its New Music Network and Premier Radio services and has direct access to South African audiences via Satellite.

Clear Channel influences and in some cases controls the careers of those working in theatre, music and sports industries and questions remain as to whether the group is an outright monopoly or simply a publicity company.

Clear Channel own or have interests in the following organisations:

Adshel Eller Media Company - Outdoor Advertising
Clear Channel Internet Group
Katz Media Group (media representation)
Clear Channel Entertainment
Premiere Radio Network
New Music Network
SFX Sports Group

Clear Channel Airports

Produced one billion targetted messages to airline passengers in 2004. Including advertising at branded airports like Cape Town International and Johannesburg International, with 85% of the concession in South African airports, as well as full advertising rights for airports in Mozambique, Uganda, Malawi and Zambia.

Clear Channel Adshel

The global street furniture brand of Clear Channel, operates over 6000 municipal and transit contracts worldwide. Adshel is currently active in 45 countries and territories including South Africa.

Clear Channel via its purchase of Corpcom a "property asset management firm" owns at least 50% of the SA outdoor advertising market that includes municipal street displays as well as billboards (cf South African-based Corporate Communications Consultants (CCC))

Clear Channel Independent operate and own 20,000 billboard structures in SA comprising: 12 sheets, 16 sheets, 48 sheets, 96 sheets and Super 96 billboards.

Clear Channel Independent offer 70 000 outdoor advertising "opportunities" in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Clear Channel Independent has a South Africa division, an Africa Division and own OHMSA (Out of Home Media SA)

Clear Channel Entertainment (CCE)

"As the world's leading promoter and marketer of live entertainment, Clear Channel Entertainment thrills millions of fans around the world with memorable experiences that only a live setting can provide. From the Rolling Stones and U2 to Cher and Madonna ... from Dora the Explorer and Blue Man Group, to The Producers, and Hairspray ... Supercross and Monster Trucks to the International Hot Rod Association ... everybody plays a Clear Channel Entertainment stage. Clear Channel Entertainment's unparalleled array of events attracts the best and brightest performers on the planet."

Clear Channel Television (CCTV)

Comprises over 40 stations in the USA affiliated to seven networks including 2 independents. Full service news departments operate in 24 markets including two in Spanish Language.

The above information has been extracted from Independent Online and Clear Channel press releases, media portals and web sites as well as the Columbia Journalism Review.

Unplugging Clear Channel

As the owner of over a thousand radio stations in the United States alone, Clear Channel Communications has managed to get itself a reputation as a pro-war, anti-poor, anti-worker, culture-homogenizing megacorp that is more than willing to strong-arm artists and ignore the public interest. For the first time in eight years, Clear Channel's radio stations in California have their licenses up for renewal this fall. Some people think it's high-time for accountability.
On Friday, September 16, protestors in San Francisco will march to Clear Channel HQ and demand that VP Michael Martin meet with a community delegation to address their concerns. Among their demands is for community affairs directors to be reinstated at all stations, as well as for local programming quotas to be set at 50%. Adbusters September 15, 2005

Clear Channel Makes Jump to the Internet source: MSNBC
Chances are most people in the U.S. wake up to, shower to or drive by Clear Channel Communications every day. The largest owner of radio stations in the country, Clear Channel controls 900 local stations and 700,000 billboards. NOW, THE MEDIA giant intends to reach listeners through their Web browsers, too. In September the company announced the formation of the Clear Channel Internet Group. Although it didn’t give details, the message was unmistakable: Clear Channel wants to coordinate all its media properties to hold consumers from the morning drive through the workday to the evening commute. November 19, 2000

MEDIA CARTEL FACT SHEET: Independent News & Media

2005-09-27T13:03:00.000+02:00

"Independent Media"

Independent News & Media PLC, a Dublin-based company are outright owners of Independent Newspaper Group and Independent Online.

135 Newspaper Titles worldwide.
Controlling news and opinion in Ireland, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and India.

International titles include: The Irish Independent, Ireland Journal, The Independent, New Zealand Herald, Mackay Daily Mercury, and Queensland Times

Independent Newspapers Holdings publishes 4.5 million individual newspapers every week and accounts for 50% of the South African market and 67% of the English speaking market.
2,8 million copies in Gauteng, KwaZulu Natal and the Western Cape alone.

Owners of Cape Argus, The Star, Daily News, The Mercury, Post, Isolezwe, Pretoria News, The Independent on Saturday, and Cape Times.

Owners of both major daily newspapers in Cape Town ( Cape Argus and Cape Times) as well as nearly every community newspaper and drop-off sheet.

Continued expansion into small "knock-n'-drops" "Community Newspapers" and "Country & District Newspapers".

Owners of Cape Community Newspapers with 14 titles (Athlone News, Atlantic Sun, Constantiaberg Bulletin, False Bay Echo, Helderberg Sun, Plainsman, Sentinel News, Southern Mail, Southern Suburbs Tatler, Tabletalk, Tygertalk, Vukani, The Cape Towner.)

Owners of the The Daily Voice, a tabloid with a lucrative tie-in deal with eTV.

16 newspaper titles in the Western Cape alone!

100% ownership of Conde Nast Magazines, which includes: GQ, Glamour, Elle, House and Garden.

Conde Nast publishes more than 50 magazines world-wide and includes brands such as Vogue, Vanity Fair, New Yorker and Wired.

40.3% interest in Clear Channel Independent, an outdoor advertising company.

Clear Channel Independent is a local subsiduary of media giant Clear Channel Communications, which owns at least 16 television stations, 1 200 radio stations and nearly 1 million outdoor displays in 65 countries.

Clear Channel operate 220 radio stations in Australia, Mexico and New Zealand

Clear Channel's television stations have a relationship with Fox News Network and are responsible for supplying content to South African channels such as eTV.

Clear Channel via its Entertainment division has a relationship with MNET and broadcasts sports progamming such as the US Open Tennis Championship

Clear Channel Communications and its subsidiaries have been accused of denying airtime to artists, restricting playlists, pushing up ticket prices of concerts and even organising pro-war demonstrations.

The Independent Group's plans for world domination continue with renewed attempts to supersize their media holdings worldwide. As the transnational conglomorate gets bigger, and bigger with lucrative tie-in deals with Fox News, Clear Channel Radio & Television, competition within the marketplace gets smaller and smaller, affecting a whole range of news media and opinion-makers. In some cases, Independent are the sole supplier of information for entire markets in the Southern Hemisphere in which they represent a massive media cartel, shoving out smaller operators, clamping down on dissent, censoring journalists and recreating the news in their own image.

South Africa's Small Press Resurrection

2005-09-08T14:13:00.000+02:00

AFTER a period of stagnation in which South Africa's press has been dominated by a few large media groupings, the small press is making a come-back, albeit in an unconventional format that draws inspiration from the world of electronic publishing as well as the self-published samizdat of the past. Are we seeing another wave of anti-establishment innovation or merely attempts to gain access to a growing media market?

During the late eighties and early nineties there existed a thriving small press culture that had as its roots, an anti-apartheid struggle born out of disgruntlement with the status quo. Aside from the alternative media then, such as Vrye Weekblad, South, New Nation and Weekly Mail, there stood in stark contrast to established titles, and under the alternative umbrella of a general discontent with the system, offerings such as Kagenna, Indlovu, and Damn New Thang. A few small publishers set out to deliver off-beat content and views that were often at odds with the leftist bent of most alternative periodicals of this period.

The small press spectrum covered anything from paganism, punk, green anarchists, sexual liberation and even libertarian ideology. However as the wider alternative press declined after the 1994 elections and more anti-establishment critics were drawn into the process of nation-building the small voices were drowned out by a cacophony of liberal conservative politicking that sort to envelope this dissent within the stranglehold of seemingly open debate. Instead of broadening the national conversation, monopolies tended to narrow things down to a few generally accepted topics.

Nevertheless small publishers persisted. In the field of literature previously marginalised writers gained access to readers via such publishers as Kwela Books and David Philips Publishers. Street level guerrilla publishers such as Zabulon Dreads 's Hei Voesak and Chimerenga delivered subversive material directly to consumers and even the homeless gained from the arrival of international projects such as the Big Issue. The impression gained from these fore's was that censorship in South Africa no longer existed. The world had seemingly changed as we all entered a new era of freedom of choice that delivered an overdose of new television channels such as eTV and global offerings such as DSTV, that claimed to help liberate ordinary South Africans from poverty, illiteracy and systemic-wide suffering.

However after the calamity of 911 and the global clampdown on freedom of speech all of this changed. The liberal conservative media no longer permitted an adequate and inclusive debate on pertinent issues such as pacifism and resistance to war. The old criticism of mainstream titles such as the Cape Times and Argus still rang true. According to Mohamed Adikari, the English liberal press continued to be accused of "shutting its eyes to the crisis facing South African society and instead anaesthetising readers with a diet of 'sunshine journalist'. "

In the face of a new form of "censorship by default" and the need to question the status quo, a small often microsized press has sprung forth, outwardly resistant to the claims of the broader mainstream to have South Africa's best interests at heart. The following is a peak at some of the smaller players that have emerged of late in the home-grown grassroots press. They include digital media as well as traditional printed periodicals.

BPM MAG
Already developing into an established voice in the South African electronic music scene, the appearance of this free monthly A5 periodical is usually greeted with sighs of instant gratification as readers look forward to specialist reviews of local and global electronica as well as more arcane muso advice. Also contains lots of coverage of the SA trance scene and the occasional article on alien nanotechnology. Available at selected outlets PO Box 4758, Tygervalley, 7536 email bpmmag2@eject.co.za

Red Hot Pages
A holistic guide to sexual empowerment. Judging from the first "Goddess Issue" the magazine seeks to provide an alternative to the beauty myths and legends of traditional woman's magazines, even going so far as targeting consumers with erotic stories. Pricey at R30 but much needed in a market dominated by Conde Nast. RHP, Ascot Knights, Grand National Blvd, Royal Ascot, Cape Town 7441. Email webmaster@redhotpages.co.za

SAM South African Music
A new Pretoria-based tabloid size local music newspaper that promises to turn music publishing upside down for only R2. Issue three covers Radio Kalahari Orkes, Kobus!, Dorp, 16Stitch, Black Rabbit, Kwani Experience, Rock62 Experience and "Whats happening to Hip Hop". Lots of cool content and extremely readable. If only it had a better sounding title instead of the obligatory acronym. PO Box 60243, Pierre van Ryneveld 0045 email info@ilikesam.co.za

Sub_Urban Magazine
An occasional underground "magazine-on-a-CD" containing lots of youthful folley and anti-globalisation anarchy. Frankly its one of the best local vehicles for free expression I've seen yet and aside from bizarre articles such as my own Cyborg Insanity, the very portable publication contains free music clips by local musicians such as Humanizer, Lark as well as video tracks and software. The project launches each issue with an interactive art party. email info@thesuburbanwebsite.co.za

Turn the Table
An attractive monthly pocket size "creative nightlife guide" published in Cape Town. Carries reviews of the underground scene, articles on indie radio and fringe art as well as short snippets and interviews with personalities that are unlikely to gain exposure elsewhere. PO Box 12232, Mill St Cape Town 8018 email info@turnthetable.net

Latest offering from the Media Head Shop

2005-09-02T12:23:00.000+02:00

The Media Head Shop, essays in media and cultural criticism 1991-2005, a self-published samizdat bundle by David Robert Lewis is now available. Contains previously published material from various South African publications, as well as unreleased work, never before published.

Here are some headings to strike your fancy:

Terrorvision 451
The Ghost inside Television
The Weakest Kink
Gift of the Gab
Viral Thought Police
Bangalory, and there goes a Teletubby
The Chain of Big Evil
Television's renewed Faith in Fakery
Captured by Illusion.

Price R15 local
$10 international (including postage)

Place your orders online by emailing ethnopunk@yahoo.co.uk, or post cheques or international money orders to David Robert Lewis PO Box 4398, Cape Town 8000.

Supersized Media in Print

2005-07-10T14:28:00.000+02:00

A revised self-published edition of Supersized Media - Probing the Independent Media Cartel and its fixation with size is available from PO Box 4398, Cape Town 8000 or email: ethnopunk@yahoo.co.uk

Send R15 plus R3 postage in South Africa only. Made out to DR LEWIS c/o Supersized Media
and dare one say it reads a whole lot better after being edited.

SA MEDIA: a pattern of suppressions?

2005-06-01T16:33:00.000+02:00

BEFORE we get into a discussion about the journalistic creed and an ethos which differs from one organisation to the next, I would like to state for the record, that I am not qualified to deliver an opinion on what constitutes fairness and accuracy in reporting. In fact, I have never been a reporter and don't intend covering hard news like some of my associates choose to do, I'm what is referred to rather, as an eccentric soft-option intellectual.

Usually I go about my business as a freelance writer by targeting an area in which I feel my journalistic skills may be of use. There's more to journalism than just pumping out facts and opinions. I'm not going for the Pulitzer prize or trying to involve myself in danger zones, turf wars, hard crimes and the mafia. However it does strike me that once you run into the problem of media cartels you inevitably risk a certain level of patronage within the press, and the result is usually subservience to the dominant order of the day.

Falling in line, or crouching behind supposed authority, even in the newsroom is not what I like to do -- As the one-time editor of an environmental supplement for South, I picked up much of my trade in the heady days of the alternative press. In fact after writing a feature about a Caltex Oil Refinery that was polluting the atmosphere, the oil industry threatened to pull its advertising for the very same supplement I was tasked with editing. Moegsien Williams, then editor-in-chief, stuck to his guns, the story was factually accurate and fair to both sides.

The only issue at stake was conflict of interest, in this case the interests of the oil industry vs the interests of the free press. We ran the story, and the oil industry kept up the ruse of being seen as good corporate citizens supporting the environment. I've never given up on that ideal: a free press is precisely one which is free to report whatever it damn wishes.

I'm going to suggest to you today that the kind of investigative reporting that is done by the M&G, a muckraking, robust newspaper is increasingly becoming impossible within the confines of a system that produces media cartels and corporate government. Being suppressed by either government or big business is unfortunately par for the course. In fact being suppressed by the Cape Times is not the first time that I've had my work ignored, or disparaged. In fact probably the first time I was ever conscious of being suppressed as a writer was after submitting a piece on pirate-software to Arthur Goldstuck, then editor of the Weekly Mail's technology section.

I was amazed to find that giving a voice to software pirates ran contrary to an editorial policy which supported the demands of the software industry for absolute ownership of property. An issue which funnily enough has become relevant as part and parcel of the creative commons/open source movement. Later it was this kind of privileged knowledge which allowed me to investigate the role of information technology in areas such as DNA testing and HIV pathology. A piece written along these lines was published in the Cape Times' Insight, Thursday, October 19, 2000 as "HIV research's new horizon - unravelling a golden braid."

The very next week I interviewed a professor Robin Wood of the Diana, Princess of Wales HIV foundation, for a series of articles I intended doing on: "Gee, look how stupid we all are, I didn't realise science had progressed so far."

To my amazement his small unit was testing a whole new range of ARVs in our backyard, which pretty much create a chemical condom. Since they had not come onto the market yet, the issue was -- do we have an obligation to inform the public in spite of a confidentiality agreement between the professor and his corporate sponsor?

More than that, the story would have been noteworthy just for sign of future development. Without even discussing this issue, I was rebuked by Colin Howell: "We've had a complaint. How dare I mention the princess in connection with HIV!" What is more, I was no longer free to use the newsroom facilities and would have to pay for my own phonecalls.

Forced into a corner, I couldn't afford to subsidise my own investigation, (I'm no crackpot scientist either) and depressed by the general consensus of pandemic, I left it at that -- back to the salt mines, unable to move forward and carrying unpaid bills and a burning reputation for capitulating in the face of friendly fire. Notch another one down for the lesson books - sycophants like Howell could not be trusted in the face of pressure from above.

A moot point for which I have ample proof in the form of a complete evasion by Independent around the circumstances directly following 911 and the withering defeat of press freedom in the face of US government pressure. Not only were staffers like Gael Reagan, with an alternative press background, purged from the Cape Times newsroom, but freelancers like myself with ties to the liberation movement were made to pay.

My punishment consisted in having my job as a book reviewer and arts & entertainment journalist cut, and an interesting fact to hang on my wall: A literary theory piece entitled Semantics of War/Semiotics of Terror, rejected out of hand by Jen Crocker and Howell for "not contributing anything new to the debate." Bare in mind that this was immediately after 911, and before the anti-war protests of February 15, 2002.

Today, I'm disgruntled with the whole notion of the press. Writing isn't what it used to be, and there's more life on the fringe. I believe robust debate, small periodicals and blogging are more important than having somebody in-charge, controlling a newsroom telling you what to think, what to believe, who to trust etc etc. If this makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist like David Icke, then I'm in good company. The youth of today, don't want the thought-police on their backs any more than we did as children.

Perhaps it is this single issue of propaganda mind control alone -- who watches over the gatekeepers of truth-- that defines the parametres of free expression, more so than any polite intellectual debate about "when is a source considered a source" or "which judicial rule applies to what fool." All we have at the end of the day , are rough approximations of the truth - a truth that can never be verified by science or reason alone because the minute you look at it, its gone.

--- David Robert Lewis

Cape Times loses its Liberal Nicotine-Halo.

2005-05-17T14:00:00.000+02:00

SHORTLY after 911, I received two emails from Jen Crocker, assistant editor for the Cape Times. They both relate to my work as a book reviewer and a literary theory piece I was working on at the time, "semantics of war/semiotics of terror". What is odd about both messages is that they also talk about a conversation between myself and Gael Reagan, then arts editor, which Crocker was somehow party to in the notorious smog-filled smoking room of the Times.

To my knowledge the grand dame of editorials was definitely not present in the smoking room at the time, (unless of course there was enough cigar smoke in there to hide her portly exterior) but rather I believe she had simply observed or witnessed the event somehow -- either via another collegues retelling of the conversation or by some other, more nefarious means.

Could it be that members of staff of the Cape Times are kept under surveillance? If one witnesses a recorded event, however vague and smokey the picture you know that you've seen it, or heard it, or viewed the proceedings perhaps via a television monitor? At least that's what I think.

In fact what is interesting about the discussion is that it related to a problem Tony Weaver was then experiencing with pressure from the US government, and our own problem as journo's having a struggle background. If Gael and I knew people for example who were members of MK did that mean that we were now obliged to rat on them as demanded by the anti-terrorism bill?
This incident marked the breakdown of my relationship with the Cape Times and Independent Group, and notwithstanding Crockers lack of an apparant rightwing agenda, she proceeded to set in motion a series of events that would culminate in Gael's dismissal and the termination of my services as a freelance writer and ad hoc employee.

(1)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:51:07 +0200
From: Jennifer Crocker
Subject: Re: BOOK REVIEW: Bull by Douglas Rushkoff
X-Sender: jenniferc@garfield.ctn.independent.co.za
To: deity@iafrica.com
Dear Dave I have no idea why you have not been paid, the payment went through from my side I will check with salaries tomorrow. Quite frankly if you don't want to do reviews, please feel free not to, but don't send me sarky little notes, I'm not in the mood these days, I have never failed to pay you for anything in the past and I am not about to start now. As for the semantics of war piece please note that it is not being published because it offers very little more to the debate than it did at the time. I do not especially appreciate hearing the type of conversation that I was witness to between you and Gael Reagon in the smoking room last month that I have some sort of rightwing agenda. So perhaps we could just part company with you believing that I am some type of apologist for the devil and the rest of you are all angels.
Jen Crocker
Jennifer Crocker
Assistant Editor Opinion
Cape Times
Tel: (021) 488 4773
Fax: (021) 488-4744
Cell: 082 924 1095

(2)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 19:33:59 +0200
From: Jennifer Crocker
Subject: Re: BOOK REVIEW: Bull by Douglas Rushkoff
X-Sender: jenniferc@garfield.ctn.independent.co.za
To: deity@iafrica.com
Dear David
Perhaps you should excuse some of my raging in the previous email, although I am rather pissed at the discussion that was going on in the smoking room. I am not a supporter of global conspiracy theories and the implication that I was part of the process of the suppression of certain world views was rather annoying. I think Tony Weaver is a big boy who can deal with his own stuff, he dishes it out, he must take it on the chin, it's one of the things about running columns that you just have to take. On the subject of the book payment I did put through a payment of R500 for you and I will check downstairs tomorrow to see if the cheque is languishing. Once again excuse the pissed off tone of the email, but I am in rather a fragile state at the moment.
Jen
Jennifer Crocker
Assistant Editor Opinion
Cape Times
Tel: (021) 488 4773
Fax: (021) 488-4744
Cell: 082 924 1095

How the Independent Group suppressed a small victory against media bosses.

2005-05-13T14:31:00.000+02:00

Shortly after 911, I was dismissed by Colin Howell (Cape Times' assistant editor), my services were terminated for no apparant reason and Independent expected me to simply walk away. I approached the CCMA as a stop-gap measure. The process went from Conciliation & Mediation to Arbitration and was so harrowing that by the time I got to arguing, the case had been eliminated for a technical reason (in limine) -- I would have had to have argued that I had been a de facto employee, which I was and not simply a freelance contributor seeking a redress of grievances and demanding my constitutional rights.

Nevertheless I then pursued the matter in the Small Claims Court and won a small victory with regard to Independent's failure to acknowledge a contractual relationship between myself, the company and former Arts Editor Gael Reagan. In a second claim another Assistant Editor, Jen Crocker denied we had a tacit agreement and that's were the matter has stood until this day. As far as I'm concerned its a sad indightment on the company's labour practices and proof that what I'm saying bears at least a modicum of truth -- if the truth could be told so as to be understood.

However according to the Independent Group there is no substance to the rumours that they had to pay out every cent owing to freelancers sacked after 911, or remunerate rands for work commissioned by the company. The act is a simple suppression of a known fact that undermines the impression of a good boss and his kindly labour organisation.

Velociraptors of the New Age

2005-05-09T16:42:00.000+02:00

WHILE seemingly efficient, giant-like media organisations, often proclaim new labour-saving methods, "media production on a tight budget" or herald moves to rationalise the work place, "the information-technology revolution" yet inevitably, the media operates under a "necessary illusion". To use Noam Chomsky's phrase the media's societal function is no longer the "standard conception of media as cantankerous, obstinate, and ubiquitous in the search for truth," but rather a terrible dependency upon powerful vested interests, as it has been for centuries ever since Gutenburg invented the printing press.

Indeed, if it were not for the Christian Church, Gutenburg would not have been in business printing bibles and religious paraphernalia. In a sense it was media theorist Marshall Macluhen (with his Mechanical Bride) who first pointed out the hypocritical relationship between Calvinism and news media, and it is the same appeal to the Gospel according to O'Reilly, that the Independent Group now proclaim their innocence.

Fortunately the lifespan of media, (and media theorists) like dinosaurs is finite. New forms of media such as blogging, the Velociraptors of the New Age, are able to tear apart the preconceived notions of Anglo-Saxon superiority. The hold on truth that supersized media cartels have had in this country for decades is being rapidly surpassed by small web-logs (like this one) that can outpace even the most agile Brachiasaurus, because that in essence is what the Independent Group is, an outmoded, super-sized dinosaur with a small brain unable to adapt to climatic change.

Far from being the super-stealthy beasts as some economists would have it, media cartels are slow to react to changes in the way people consume meaning. To put this in a nutshell -- The public are just not that dumb anymore and even the most ardent reader can sense when writers are getting ripped off or taken for granted. Are you having the wool pulled over your eyes? Is the truth being hidden from you? How long will Independent be able to keep up the charade? Judging from the way editorial policy has been managed, indefinitely it would seem, considering there aren't that many writers left and the whole media business is now run by editors and their infernal machines.

Machines it is sad to say, like your very own home computer, have taken-over many of the processes once considered the preserve of media workers. As humans get replaced by software, less and less people benefit from the media production process. The food chain is thinned out, power is concentrated in the hands of the few-on-top, while those below take strain. Eventually, one technocrat is left in control of the same amount of verbiage, information/content, as twenty or thirty equals would have been a decade ago. The result is an amplification of the inherent weaknesses in the system, as recent decisions by Independent's editors concerning HIV-testing/Sexual Health and the handling of the tricky Invasion of Iraq will bear out.

Blogging however, is so rapid an advance by the body, that soon the head will have no reason for being: The evolution of super-sized media it would seem, has come to resemble a giant Brachiasaurus, slowly feeding off the imaginary public swamp, and comprised fabulously of a large body of lowly-paid workers, with little chance of advancement; no middle management and a minuscule head containing (a vaguely consciously-aware brain). Blogs on the other hand don't need content managers, have little use for market-censorship, and don't have half the propaganda workload that nine-to-five employees of the Independent Propaganda Machine have.

Blogs are in essence the Seventh Estate, the digital safety-valve, the new electronic steam-whistle blowing off facts about the fact that O'Reilly's media organisation suppressed the facts, or emphasising that his group ripped off writers, or colouring his refusal to make amends or even acknowledge guilt. Yes, that's right, according to the Gospel according to O'Reilly, "the facts are whatever he says they are" and "he's not guilty even if his labour practices are found guilty by a court of law."**see note.

Progressively the new technology-driven savings on "the cost of labour" are being funnelled up the food chain through the giant brachiosaurus-mind to its small head on top. Some techno-driven people above the clouds, the central brain, it seems have forgotten that most ordinary people dwell far below, hence the puny feet beneath the body. Supersized but to no avail, the higher the CEO's salary, the bigger the discrepancy in wages, the greater the class divide, the larger the language gap, the more enormous the ego trip, the point is finally reached where the beast ceases to evolve, where it is necessary for the head to attack the body and vice versa.

For all intents and purposes, the Independent Media Cartel is an extinct animal, an historical footnote on the path of progress, waiting for you, the blog reader, Velociraptors of the New Age, to ask the right questions, interrogate the right facts and to question these dinosaurs to find out the terrible truth -- who or what exactly controls the new economy of truth -- and in answering this question, thereby diminishing both the Independent Group, the size-issue and its reason for being.

MEDIA FREEDOM: Cape Times, not that sort of liberal?

2005-05-04T12:07:00.000+02:00

"The Rand Daily Mail was the only paper directly to support the Progressive Party. Its sister paper, the Cape Times, supported the United Party, which wanted a more gentle apartheid, and The Star called on people to vote for anyone except the National Party. The Afrikaans newspapers were unanimous in their unequivocal support for the ruling party." Anton Harber, The Untimely Death of South Africa's finest daily, published in Sunday Times, May 1, 2005.

NEED one say more? I guess one should say something since the comment above is aimed at the politics of the 1970s and the anniversary of the death of South Africa's only liberal newspaper twenty years ago. It is quite evident from reading Harber, that the Cape Times, a conservative title owned by media giants, the Independent Group, nailed its colours to the mast decades ago with its open support of apartheid, albeit in a different form.

A travesty of justice which it never managed to shake, even during the reformist politics of the early eighties which infused writing from that era and persuaded many so-called liberals to support PW Botha's National Party government and its strange version of democracy, something called "tricameralism".

How many closet racists cloistered themselves amongst seeming liberal and even radical ideology? I must confess, as a young revolutionary anarchist to being caught-out on the issue of reform during a matric debate in the opening stages of 1985 -- of course reform was a good thing, any move away from Vorster's Police State was a good thing, that is if one failed to consider the creeping military putsch that was happening under General Malan, and the descent into covert chaos that would soon occur under the State of Emergency.

To my own horror, and the chagrin of my classmates, I had fallen into the terrible trap set by more mature minds -- Whites who were old enough to vote for change in the 1983 referendum. The bait of PW Botha's tricameral parliament (for all intents and purposes an apartheid-lite and, one which excluded the black majority) was the apparent reintroduction of the franchise to include members of the Indian and Coloured communities.

"Seperate but equal" was the racist's anthem and seperated into different houses of parliament, one for each "race group" was the plan which was no equality at all. To make matters worse, not only was the black majority excluded, but leaders participating in apartheid's tricameral structures were seen by the broader community as nothing more than puppets of the Botha government. A situation remarkably similar to present day Iraq in which so-called democracy is being imposed by a superpower?

One can wipe the slate clean on media freedom and pretend that nothing of any significance has happened here in posing this question -- make believe if one wants that the conservative Cape Times was really a communist daily in disguise (as many in Botha's cabinet assumed) -- or one can remember that compared to western standards of normality, an abnormal situation has arisen in which martial law, tricameralism, apartheid, was no democracy at all, a deviation from the consensus, an aberration at best.

In one sense, the Cape Times, like so many institutions that grew through apartheid, has developed a pathological conceit, the result of an institutional failure to deal with a crisis of its own making, a crisis in which political repression and suppression of dissent by a small "in" club continues unabated.

A club whose membership is the assumption of democracy-lite, tricameralism, racial chauvenism and even the superiority of their gender and religion, whose members are given complete sway because of their supposed standing, while others, lets not be ashamed of being cast as "Other", are considered ruined, moral reprobates, social degenerates or worse over such banal issues as HIV testing (to test or not to test, that is the question) or the more crucial and problematic war against terror (to invade Iraq or not?).

Does that mean we want "in" as many assume? No, the crisis is too well developed to be assuaged by a simple haranguing of the body. An amputation of a limb or a plucking out of a hair. A new course must be set, and that is for alternative media to develop alongside so-called mainstream media, because without it, we are left with a constant threat of excommunication from the church of reason, the manufacture of our consent in the editorial process, the seizure of our ability to make choices and decisions which affect us.

The Size Issue therefore calls for alternative voices to be heard and for debate to continue on mass-media consumption patterns.

Independent: The Big, Bad, Evil Con-Fabulators of Choice

2005-04-29T11:25:00.000+02:00

FAR from being a conspiracy, Noam Chomsky contends that the manufacture of consent (the fabrication of peoples ultimate right to choose) is the logical result of the "free-market". He maintains that, "most biased choices in the media arise from the preselection of right-thinking people, internalised preconceptions, and the adaptation of personnel to the constraints of ownership, organisation, market, and political power."

Our choices he maintains then are subject to editorial approval, our options, wishes, hopes and desires carefully manipulated and packaged with or without our express permission: "Censorship is largely self-censorship, by reporters and commentators who adjust to the realities of source and media organisational requirements, and by people at higher levels within media organisations who are chosen to implement, and have usually internalised, the constraints imposed by proprietary and other market and governmental centres of power".

The more one concedes individual freedom, the more one realises the new relationship being constructed by the news media, is not about relating truth, but rather a new form of inquisition as entertainment, an auto de fe that keeps the public guessing. The questions being posed by today’s Shabir Shaik "journalistas" for instance, may as well be preprocessed, vetted, examined for sign of dissident behaviour, dissenting thought, ideological sway. The objective world of fact has given way to a game of charades -- everybody and everything has a point of view, that can be extrapolated, beggared, and dusted for meaning.

The adjustment to the new universe of freedom of expression on the one hand, and rule by market forces on the other, takes some getting used to. American press groupings, for example, are by and large constrained by laws governing cross-ownership of media and balanced by a bill of rights enshrining freedom of expression; in South Africa experience proves otherwise. Suppression of news stories, outright censorship for whatever reason and the constant threat of a banning order, exposes the brutality of the system while bringing into stark contrast the hypocrisy of supersized media organisations like the Independent Group.

Where once the Apartheid state restricted writers and journalists, even going so far as exiling and then killing Ruth First, that function has been overtaken by a skewed editorial process which Chomsky so aptly describes, as "an observable pattern of indignant campaigns and suppressions, of shading and emphasis, and of selection of context, premises, and general agenda..." all of which fit into a new "de-regulated" environment in which the markets reign supreme, dictating both content and the context of our supposed "views."

According to Chomsky, the chief specialist on the subject: "The trend toward greater integration of media into the market system has been accelerated by the loosening of rules limiting media concentration, cross-ownership, and control by non-media companies." It is within this context of a loosening of strictures that Independent have carefully chosen to operate and in which they see themselves as the dominant player for the foreseeable future.

HUMOUR: Breaking up Independent's Media Cartel Game

2005-04-27T18:54:00.000+02:00

1. Sell off the Cape Times to Calvinland where Hobbes can accuse O'Reilly of not being kind to tigers.

2. Break-up the entire Independent Group into bits owned by Scrooge McDuck of Disney World. Oops, sorry that's already been done by Time-Warner-AOL.

3. Part the Saturday Star and Sunday Independent between 27 episodes of Cecil B de Milles' Moses, or reruns of the old Twilight Zone, where journalists who question authority and disobey orders are bound, gagged and eventually disappear.

4. Turn the old Cape Argus' page 3 tip into a lucrative page 4 girl that lip-synchs into a gobsmacking collaborative media strategy with sister publication The Voice.

5. Devote page after page of editorial to our fearless leader: - Colin Farrel and Tony Bennett.

6. Change the Tonight Entertainment super-section into a homely strippersclub where you can meet your mother-in-law. Right, you've already done, that, I see, the, err problem.

7. Do away with current events and sport altogether and play catch-up on the Size-Issue weblog as this entire thing gets out of hand.

NEXT: 50 More Reasons to get Serious about Size.

Just say no to supersized media

2005-04-21T13:46:00.000+02:00

Just say no to supersized media
In Atlanta, at the last "unsanctioned" FCC hearing organized by dissident commissioners, Big Media gets small support.
- - - - - - - - - - - -By Meredith Hobbs

May 29, 2003 ATLANTA -- Atlanta has dubbed itself "the city too busy to hate." We are a city of people too harried to do anything much except go to work, fight traffic, pick up some franchise takeout, rent a DVD, and go home. Atlanta is a fragmented and disconnected city where pods of commerce are linked by highways choked with people driving SUVs and talking to themselves, cellphone wires dangling from their ears. It is not a city where we often get together to talk about the future of our democracy.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/05/29/fcc_hearing/index_np.html

South Africa''s Resistance Press: The dissident voices are dead!

2005-04-21T13:27:00.000+02:00

Found this reference on the internet which might be of interest:

South Africa''s Resistance Press: Alternative Voices in the Last Generation under Apartheid.(Book Review)Publication Date: 22-MAR-03Publication Title: African Studies Quarterly Format: HTMLAuthor: Ruether, KirstenArticle Price: $9.95 Subscription to Research: $49.95/month (learn more)

Description
edited by Les Switzer and Mohamed Adhikari, Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2000. 472 pp. The dissident voices are dead. Dozens of newspapers and magazines were vitally important in bringing about change in apartheid South Africa, but hardly any of them have survived into the post-apartheid era. The collection of articles in this publication focus on the variety of print media that emerged in a struggle against an authoritarian regime, but many of which have since lost their role in contemporary discussions on society and politics. The texts are weighed towards the description of the politics and ...

How Big is Big? The issue of mammoth proportions

2005-04-16T14:42:00.000+02:00

Supersized Media: Part Four

TO DATE, Independent Media owns 18 titles in the Western Cape's newsprint sector alone. This does not include vast media holdings worldwide, over 120 newspapers in 12 countries, a considerable online presence, and supersized media holdings in and around South Africa. More recently the group's entry into the lucrative tabloid market with the Daily Voice has meant a break with local tradition. The previously staid, often progressive "English Press" is now delivering scare stories about penis enlargement, lesbian orgies and an extremely well-endowed page 3 girl. Nothing out of the ordinary as far as international tabloid journalism is concerned, so why all the fuss?

The Cape Times, one of South Africa's "negotiators of consent", was founded by F Y St Leger in 1876 to counter the gossip and scandal which he believed to be "the literature of the gutter". More so, the paper achieved a remarkable reputation for being outspoken and independent of the influence of billionaires like Cecil John Rhodes. St Leger would be turning in his grave, to see money and influence-peddling the big order of the day -- (The demands made by the new mammoth media cartels of latter-day capitalism represent chiefly the interests of todays empire-builders --21st century Cecil John Rhodes')

In relating criticism of the English Press, including the Cape Times, Communications Historian, Gordon Jackson in his "Breaking Story", a 1993 review of the South African press, says "because of their ownership and consequent ideological bias, the English press are riddled with shortcomings....the main charge being that they present a biased and distorted view of reality that reflects only a highly selective and inadequite view of South African Society."

It is by and large, the failure to present reality, in anything other than highly selective terms -- terms which favour a few exceptional billionaires and not ordinary people -- that helps to construct a pernicious super-power maelstrom. However difficult, the only solution is to limit media ownership and the subsequent creation of cartels, by disentangling the hydra-headed beast that seemingly gives society the appearance of a "consensual discourse". One might also refer to Gramsci's "hegemonic principle", and the debate about consent which Noam Chomsky points out is actually "manufactured" and in some instances, "fabricated" by media into the appearance of rational discourse.

It is precisely Independent Media with its concommitent Anglo-American New World Order that drives attempts to globalise and forces us all to accept the supersized status quo. In fact writers like Howard Barrell, P Eric Louw and the Tomasellis generally criticise this uniformity and conformism:

In comparing the English and Afrikaans papers, Louw argued: "Both are owned and largely staffed by elements of the same ruling elite. Both clearly paint a picture of the world that reflects the interest of various ... "class fractions". Hence both 1) justify the status quo...and 2) both serve to exclude alternative perspectives (that is to say perspectives fundementally at odds with those held by the ruling class.)

The Tomaselli's reiterate: "The popular press views those who transgress or threaten dominant social norms (like drug users, criminals, soccer hooligans, homosexuals, political extremists and so on) as 'outsiders'. By casting such groups in the role of folk devils the media serve to strengthen our degree of commitment to ideas of normal behaviour, and to create a climate of opinion that supports the operations of society's sanctioning agency."

In this role as a "sanctioning agency" the Independent Group's shortcomings become apparant, for without the manufacture of consent by transnational media corporations there would be no sanction for war, no proclamation of terror, no awareness of a master-plan for the elimination of civil liberties, human rights and so forth that all form part of the "Bush-Blair-O'Reilly" agenda.

South Africa's supposed "free press" then, is thus one which continues to disbar journalists and writers on the basis of the colour of their skin, their religious beliefs, political views, cultural affiliations, sexual orientation and so on. The reason for this is the subsuming of local interests under the interests of a new conformity that has as its basis, the creation of a single global media cartel. In the struggle for freedom, the press have become their own worst enemy, arguing for what is essentially the opposite of diversity -- a monocultural one-size-fits-all mega-media that is no freedom at all.

Big is well, Bigger --Independent's Empire - The Sheer Magnanimity of it all.

2005-04-10T15:02:00.000+02:00

IN THE climate of a negotiated settlement, and under the benevolent regime of Mandela's presidency, there were few words in opposition to Tony O'Reilly's new Independent Media stable. In fact landmark transformation occurred in the company with the hiring of black editors like Moegsien Williams and Ryland Fischer. With the creation of a new petty bourgeoisie, it seemed as if institutions like the Cape Times would continue to apply a progressive veneer to the news, despite being dominated by white liberals, and notwithstanding a history of firing editors for their views.

In fact, the terrible brewhaugh surrounding the sacking of editor Anthony Heard by the Cape Times board under sustained pressure from the Botha-government on the one hand, and the Argus Group on the other, was quietly forgotten. It seemed in the hazy twilight of transformation, as if anything could happen. Gerald Shaw records in his oblique way, the machinations of a lily-white, totally-male Cape Times board acquiessing to pressure from SAAN and overseeing the wholesale transfer of assets and local interests in favour of a new supersized, global entity under the iron fist of Tony O'Reilly.

As far as liberalism was concerned, people felt empowered. Things appeared to get better. Yet the Anglo-American stake in Media South Africa Inc. was being cynically protected while jews and people-of-colour were relegated. How much of this "transformation" was simply window dressing? Local media theorists Keyan and Ruth Tomaselli pose some interesting questions with regard to the role of the media as "gatekeepers of truth" -- in a well-known critique of the way in which a highly selective process evolves into the dominant world-view.

As long as editors kept quiet and accepted their subservient role to the interests of British Capital, the charade of free speech, black empowerment and liberal politicking continued. However, those who transgressed the boundaries separating liberal ideology from reality, anglo-saxon philosophy from objective fact, were simply dealt with. Ryland Fischer was deposed, Moegsien Williams, relegated to Johannesburg and underlings like Sandile Dikeni and Gael Reagan, disciplined and browbeaten into oblivion.

In the Tomaselli's critical notion, mass media appears to include a "consensual discourse" yet they also refer to "discursive sanctions" in which journalists are forced to work within an "ideological framework" that assumes a form of retribution for violations or variances in opinion.

"Policy [at the Cape Times] is learnt through osmosis, a tacit process of, 'learning the ropes'," the Tomaselli's maintain. The subtlety of this osmotic void becomes ever more bizarre as one poses such critical problems. In fact, simply questioning the status quo or seriously tackling the conditions in which South Africans of all persuasions find themselves continues to be seen as threatening and unacceptable to the new guardians of moral authority, and the experience of the Cape Times is indicative of the way transformation can simply turn into a neat sidestep away from progress.

South Africa's blue-chip daily newspaper, The Cape Times transformed then, from a progressive establishment voice into a supplement to the national daily Business Report and to this day still lacks a viable entertainment section.

The Cape Times' Subaltern Studies

2005-04-06T10:46:00.000+02:00

Note: This is part of the Liberal Nazi's thread, a copy has been sent to the newspaper concerned.

The Cape Times' Subaltern Studies

Patrick Laurence's pathetic attempt to exhonerate the nazi sympathiser Van Wyk Louw, in a piece published (and more than likely commissioned) by the Cape Times yesterday falls into a division of subaltern studies (the study of subordinate, dominated, marginalised or excluded "races", castes, ethnic and linguistic groups, classes, genders and cultures) that looks at demagogues and the way their supporters contest power.

If Hitler wasn't all that bad, the logic of Laurence's argument goes, then Himmler and Goering could be forgiven for what they perpetrated against the Jewish people. It is easy to fall into the trap of equating the Nazi Holocaust with the apartheid state, but the real travesty is if we ignore the history of our nation, brushing aside growing concerns that we have not been fully reconciled as a people, nor totally in possession of the truth about the perpetrators of hate-crimes, especially when it comes to poets and writers.

Laurence manages to turn a "brief flirtation with Nazism" into an eloquent defence of Grand Apartheid and Separate Development. And while not a "devotee of Verwoerd" N P Van Wyke Louw, it is admitted, contributed to theories about racial superiority, and indeed, as Laurence recognises, justified Verwoerdian notions of seperate development in his own, unenviable way. It would take a grant from the Helen Suzman foundation to produce a closer reading of the texts in this debate, but from what I can gather, Laurance is dangerously close to prevaricating on the crime against humanity (known as Apartheid) and indeed, fabricating history.

If Apartheid wasn't all that bad, goes Laurence's own monologic, because it carried within it, the seeds of its own demise, then Nazism was even better, since only Hitlers suicide ended World War 2. It is impossible to retrace history, to correct mistakes and deviations in thought -- all we have to go on is the solipsism of hope that future generations will not make the same mistakes as those of our forefathers, some of whom went to the grave denying that such a strange notion as non-racialism could ever exist in reality.

Before Size Became an Issue

2005-04-04T12:03:00.000+02:00

SHORTLY after the election in 1994, South Africa joined the Commonwealth and in return for various guarantees, most notably the Sunset Clauses negotiated by SACP leader Joe Slovo that protected white interests, the wholesale discounting of various elements of the old regime began. Most notably the privatisation of state assets such as Telkom (Telephone), Transnet (Transport), Iscor (Steel), Sasol (Petrol) and more recently the pending sale of Eskom (Electricity).

The preditory capitalism unleashed by the forces of transformation had created a strange new ball game that would reshape the economic landscape, effecting consumers for decades to come. In the brief months preceding the epochal 1994 elections, and in a climate of uncertainty before size became an issue, Tony O'Reilly's Independent Group seized control of the Argus Group, formerly owned by the South African Associated Newspapers, "a radical transformation had begun in the newspaper industry," records Gerald Shaw in his informal history of the Cape Times.

In March 1994, after buying titles like the Argus, Weekend Argus and Star, the group went on to poach the jewel in Times Media's crown, the Cape Times: "Before the deal could go through, [Independent] had to satisfy the Competition Board that the continued existence of the Cape Times and the continued editorial independence of both the Cape Times and [renamed] Cape Argus were not in jeapardy, and that the need of all sections of the community served by these newspapers to have a 'meaningful voice' in the running of them would be respected."
Shaw observed wryly that "as far as the Competition Board saw it, a monopoly system already existed among English language newspapers at the Cape, and a change of control of the Cape Times and Argus from [Anglo-JCI] to Independent Newspapers would not alter the situation in the city." In other words, whatever the deal, Anglo-American interests still appeared to be be served.

Next: Big is well, Bigger...

Super-Sized Media: Probing the Independent Group's Fixation with Size

2005-03-28T14:05:00.000+02:00

MEDIA Cartels are nothing new. William Randolf Hearst created one of the worlds largest media empires during the thirties and his influence on the fate of nations is depicted by Orson Welles' biting satire Citizen Kane. More recently Rupurt Murdoch's news oligarchy has been under scrutiny by various critics who lambaste the way in which his depiction of reality enters our homes via television. Essentially, they contend that facts are being overtaken by propaganda and spin-doctors have replaced fair comment.

In South Africa the struggle for press freedom has tended to overshadow issues related to the control of the media by an elite, whose goals are no longer the heroic battle to prevent government intervention and state-sponsored censorship, but rather the accumulation of money and power. Have we sacrificed press freedom in favour of the boardroom? Are we dumping progressive concerns about media control and journalistic integrity in favour of a machievellian view that sees the world as one giant chessboard with issues of regional or national importance paling beside more significant concerns of empire and anglo-american globalisation?

(Next chapter: Before Size Became an Issue)

Top SA Writers backed Nazis and Apartheid Regime?

2005-03-26T13:13:00.000+02:00

The Independent Media Group continues to downplay its involvement with the Apartheid Regime. Check this recent spin story from the Cape Times:

"Top SA writer 'backed Nazis' March 24, 2005

By Fatima Schroeder

The families of Afrikaner poet N P van Wyk Louw and his brother W E G Louw have turned to the Cape High Court to prevent the public getting hold of a book of letters between the two.

They claim the letters the brothers wrote between 1936 and 1939 are private and show the authors entertained racist and anti-Semitic thoughts..."

http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=269&fArticleId=2458094

Good going, but what Schroeder fails to mention is that the liberal nazi media organisation, INDEPENDENT MEDIA continues to employ writers who collaborated with the apartheid arts and culture, supported seperate amenities, and to this day refuse to apologise for the rollout of whites only facilities and job reservation.

Small on Politics: Independent Media's Size Issue

2005-03-19T13:04:00.000+02:00

"Big on Sex, Scandal, Skinner & Sport. Small on
Politics. Nothing that will bore the life out of you."
Rashid Seria, editor, The Voice.

Small on Politics, is what one has come to suspect
from the Western Cape's, Independent Group, who with
their Cape Times Cape Argus, Weekend Argus and 14
community newspapers, still refuse to pay workers a
living wage.

With the launch of The Voice, a sleazy tabloid
directed at perverts everywhere, journalism has hit a
new low. Nothing knew for a media corp that employs
former Penthouse writer, Colin Howell; the apologist
for apartheid era arts and culture, Derrick Wilson and
a host of liberal nazis whose views on sex, drugs and
rock 'n roll, leave little to the imagination.

The move is indicative of a mindset that is
hypocritical at best, and sadly lacking in creativity.
While the company announces record profits, group CEO
John Howard can't afford to pay book reviewers, art
critics and entertainment writers. "Journalism at its
most putrid. The stench of opportunism and for all we
know Independent Media could be bankrolling the ACDP,"
says one anonymous insider who refused to be named for
fear of being blacklisted by the multi-national
conglomerate that continues to bully small publishers
and looks set to take-over South Africa's heartland
with tales about penis enlargment and botched
back-street abortions.

The only thing that can save us now is for government
to pass anti-media-cartel legislation and to act
timeously to prevent a huge monopoly from abusing its
workers. It is plain to see that while John Howard
screams ethics, his only goal is to counter attacks
such as this one, and without so much as giving
workers a voice, or right of reply. Come on Howard,
give sex workers a break and let us know who you're
shagging.