was one of the many attempts by senior management to undermine quality journalism in favour of content that would yield positive spin-offs. 10.1.4 According to the 8”, the crisis as far as providing independent and “SABC credible news and current affairs programmes to the vast majority of citizens and residents has been a concern for a long period. It was particularly pronounced through the month of July 2016 which preceded South Africa’s local government elections. During this time an editorial decision by the SABC was announced banning the airing of violent footage. Journalists were suspended and summarily dismissed for challenging editorial directives which in effect required journalists to self-censor. Although seven of the eight journalists were reinstated shortly after their dismissal, they informed ICASA that the editorial interference was continuing unabatedly. 10.1.5 Evidence was also heard from the 8” that journalists and editors were “SABC discouraged from covering the election campaigns of opposition parties. In some cases journalists were informally requested to give certain individuals within the governing party more positive coverage. 10.1.6 The Minister denied that she had interfered in the editorial policy or the newsroom, as the 8” had indicated. She also dismissed their “SABC recommendation that an internal ombud be established. 10.2 Editorial Review process 10.2.1 When the SABC last reviewed its editorial policy in 2004, a draft editorial policy was released for public consultation. When the policy was reviewed in 2015, the same level of intensive public consultation did not occur, despite what the Broadcasting Act requires. This matter is currently under investigation by ICASA. 10.2.2 The revised editorial policy is problematic for several reasons–it gives the COO control of the SABC’s content and programming, making him or her the Another problematic inclusion in the revised policy is that it makes the principle of referral” mandatory and the COO’s decision on all “upward editorial issues final. Editors and journalists are threatened with severe consequences should they not refer matters to their superiors and “contentious” Mr Motsoeneng. This is a complete about-turn from the old policy, where it was
was one of the many attempts by senior management to undermine quality journalism in favour of content that would yield positive spin-offs. 10.1.4 According to the “SABC 8”, the crisis as far as providing independent and credible news and current affairs programmes to the vast majority of citizens and residents has been a concern for a long period. It was particularly pronounced through the month of July 2016 which preceded South Africa’s local government elections. During this time an editorial decision by the SABC was announced banning the airing of violent footage. Journalists were suspended and summarily dismissed for challenging editorial directives which in effect required journalists to self-censor. Although seven of the eight journalists were reinstated shortly after their dismissal, they informed ICASA that the editorial interference was continuing unabatedly. 10.1.5 Evidence was also heard from the “SABC 8” that journalists and editors were discouraged from covering the election campaigns of opposition parties. In some cases journalists were informally requested to give certain individuals within the governing party more positive coverage. 10.1.6 The Minister denied that she had interfered in the editorial policy or the newsroom, as the “SABC 8” had indicated. She also dismissed their recommendation that an internal ombud be established. 10.2 Editorial Review process 10.2.1 When the SABC last reviewed its editorial policy in 2004, a draft editorial policy was released for public consultation. When the policy was reviewed in 2015, the same level of intensive public consultation did not occur, despite what the Broadcasting Act requires. This matter is currently under investigation by ICASA. 10.2.2 The revised editorial policy is problematic for several reasons–it gives the COO control of the SABC’s content and programming, making him or her the Another problematic inclusion in the revised policy is that it makes the principle of “upward referral” mandatory and the COO’s decision on all editorial issues final. Editors and journalists are threatened with severe consequences should they not refer “contentious” matters to their superiors and Mr Motsoeneng. This is a complete about-turn from the old policy, where it was