Threats to editorial independence in Africa

Professor Herman Wasserman, the Deputy Head of Rhodes University’s School of Journalism, spoke to African media managers on “Threats to Editorial Independence in Africa” on 25 April 2013. The managers, drawn from South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe, were attending the Essentials of Broadcast Management, a five-day business management course run by Rhodes University’s Sol Plaatje Institute for Media Leadership in Grahamstown, South Africa. Below are excerpts from Professor Wasserman’s remarks:

I was asked to reflect on the topic of ‘Threats to editorial independence in Africa’. Knowing that you are all media practitioners, I have to avoid the immediate danger that you will view this as a perspective from an academic ensconced in an ivory tower, and therefore disregard my comments as irrelevant. But, sometimes viewing things from a distance can bring some clarity.

On the other hand, journalism and the academy have in common the commitment to dialogue, discovery and criticism, so I hope that my remarks tonight can be the start of ongoing discussion and exchange of opinion.

I would like to break down the title of my talk into three questions: First, what do we mean by ‘independence’?

Secondly, what makes Africa different as a context where we ask this question?

And thirdly, perhaps most importantly, what are the threats facing editorial independence?

So let us start with ‘independence’. The notion that journalists should not be beholden to outside interests is an established one in journalism ethics. Consider, for instance, the section on ‘Independence and conflicts of interest’ in the South African Press Council’s code. It states:

3.1 The press shall not allow commercial, political, personal or other non- professional considerations to influence or slant reporting. Conflicts of interest must be avoided,as well as arrangements or practices that could lead audiences to doubt the press's independence and professionalism.

3.2 Journalists shall not accept a bribe, gift or any other benefit where this is intended or likely to influence coverage.

3.3 The press shall indicate clearly when an outside organisation has contributed to the cost of newsgathering.

3.4 Editorial material shall be kept clearly distinct from advertising.

The Broadcasting Complaints Commission, in an earlier version of their code, took over the formulation of the BBC’s code of conduct that required journalists to report the news ‘with due impartiality’. The ‘due’ suggests that complete impartiality and independence is never really possible.

These stipulations in media ethical codes indicate that society expects of its journalists to speak on behalf of the public interest, not their own interests -- be these financial, political or personal – or the interests of some other party. We do not want journalists to write praise songs for companies in which they own shares, or have a relationship with a politician they report about, etc. (This is the basis for the – in all likelihood spurious – accusation of the minister of Communications against the Sunday Times’ Mzilikazi waAfrika that his reporting was influenced by supposed business interests in China).

Independence as an ethical value is closely linked to the liberal view of journalism in a democracy – the expectation is that journalism brings an independent perspective on political and social affairs and provides a disinterested check and balance on power – the so-called Fourth Estate.

Why is this so important? Because the assumption is that we can trust an independent media, as they have nothing to hide – they have our interests at heart. Not their own interests, not that of politicians, big business or their family or friends. Ours. From this perspective, independent self-regulation by the media, or co-regulation between the media and representatives of the public (the current system for press regulation in South Africa), is seen as preferable to statutory regulation that would compromise the media’s independence.

But, as with all ethical concepts, there exists differences of opinion about how widely this concept should apply, and what exactly it means. In the first instance, many media are big businesses themselves, and most certainly also have their own interests to think of. We can however expect of media to be responsible for not letting their own interests stand in the way of the public’s interests. But of course the media sometimes lets us down – the recent phone-hacking scandal in the UK is an illustration of how the media’s own commercial interests can even lead it to harm ordinary people.

It is not always easy to decide what ‘independence’ means in practical journalistic situations. Does independence mean, for instance, that journalists should never have any political views? That they should never be involved in any community organization? That they should not take a position on matters?

I would argue that a journalist without an opinion is not a good journalist. Journalists with no view on the matters that they report on, not only produce boring journalism, but also have a limited chance of effecting social change. The mantra of ‘objectivity’ should not mean never taking a stance, or never becoming emotionally involved. It would be immoral and inhuman to report on a massacre without allowing yourself an emotional response, or reporting on a or a genocide by balancing both sides as equal.

But the kind of independence we need to insist upon from journalists in Africa is the kind that ensures that news is reported in the interest of the public – not the interests of politicians, big business, or even the media themselves. Independence is however not the same as an editorial authoritarianism that refuses to answer to anyone outside the newsroom – journalists and editors remain responsible to the public (which, by the way, is a much broader concept than the ‘audience’ or the ‘market’ – but I’ll return to that point later).

So when we talk about ‘independence’, it is important that we ask: ‘independence from whom’? We should also be clear about what independence is not:

Independence does not mean arrogance – not listening to criticism or corrections from others. Independences does not mean that journalism is a value-free exercise or that journalists do not have to justify their actions – the claims that ‘we are just holding up a mirror to society’ or ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ are mostly poor excuses to avoid self-reflection by journalists.

Independence does also not mean aloofness – journalists should remain rooed in communities, should remain committed to the public interest, even if that concept is difficult to define especially in a fragmented and unequal society such as South Africa. When journalists start thinking of themselves as an elite at a remove from the everyday lives of ordinary people, journalism is in trouble.

To come to our second question – what makes Africa different as a context for independent journalism?

While the notion of independence is one that can be found in journalistic codes around the world, there are some specific conditions in African countries that gives the question of independence added dimensions.

For one, an independent media as a watchdog of democracy is not an idea appreciated in many African countries. We know that journalists around the continent are still being harassed, imprisoned and even killed for daring to have an independent voice. Even in those African countries where freedom of the press is constitutionally protected, reality does not always meet the ideal. Several countries have insult laws in place that prohibit criticism of the president; and even in countries that do not have such formal laws in place, prevailing cultural attitudes of respect towards elders are often used in an attempt to muzzle media criticism of political leaders. But we should also guard against essentialising and homogenizing ‘Africa’ Some countries like Ghana, self-regulation of the media is better developed than in others. Different countries in Africa are also in different stages of the developmental trajectory – in some, democracy is reasonably well established, others are still in transition to democracy, and in others democracy is yet to arrive. So it is impossible to talk about media independence ‘in Africa’ in general terms -- we have to acknowledge the specifics of the situation in various countries.

The media in African countries also operate against the historical background of colonialism and post-colonialism, that firstly created rifts in society between elites and the rest of the population, which are still mirrored in the media landscapes in many African countries today; and secondly often created expectations that the media should support the post-colonial developmental state, rather than act as its adversary. These inheritances make it difficult for the media to be truly independent – there is the danger that it would continue to view the world from the perspective of a narrow, elite section of society instead of giving voice to the masses; and is often branded as unpatriotic or disloyal when they criticize the government.

The colonial legacy of divide-and-rule can also still be felt in Africa. In certain African countries, journalists’ ethnic loyalties also come into tension with their stated aim of remaining professional and independent. A recent PhD study here at Rhodes by Jacinta Maweu demonstrated how ethnic loyalties impact on the ethical decision-making of journalists working for the Nation Group in Kenya. She found that ethnicity often acts as a type of ‘filter’ that determines what gets published or not. Apart from the inherited legacy of colonialism, Africa is also located within new global networks of power, in which it is often on the margins of a globalized economy (even while The Economist is celebrating ‘Africa Rising’, it is rising from a very low baseline). Compared to North America and Europe, Africans are still by and large on the underside of the global digital divide, even when there is spectacular growth in some areas of digital media and especially mobile telephones. Asymmetries in access to the media are amplified internally, with disparities between media-rich and media-poor. What does this have to do with media independence?

This – that if the media in highly unequal societies is dependent on the support of a specific section of that society, usually the commercially lucrative one that advertisers are interested in, it makes it difficult for them to cover stories that might not be of direct interest to their primary market.

Or, media can be run in an unsustainable manner that makes them over-dependent on government or donor funding, which again undermines their independence to make independent choices.

This of course is basic commercial logic – but it prompts us to ask the question again about what we mean by an independent media – independent from whom? And, perhaps more importantly, dependent on whom?

This brings us to the third and last part of our question that completes the topic that this talk was meant to be about: what are the threats facing editorial independence in Africa today?

That there are political threats to media freedom and editorial independence around the continent is well-known, but it is worth restating. The Protection of State Information Bill debated in the South African parliament today shows that these threats continue to develop even in countries that pride themselves for their protection of media freedom.

But we should see the threats to media independence more widely than just in the political sphere.

Social and material conditions in many African countries make it difficult for the media to act as independently as they might want to. Journalists are often not well-paid, which means that they succumb to pressures of ‘brown envelope journalism’, where they accept gifts or bribes from sources to supplement their income. This is a clear and widespread example of how economic independence is equally as important as political independence.

Commercial interests can also threaten editorial independence in other ways. The notion of media independence is held up as an ethical principle because it enables the media to act as a check on power on behalf of the public – to afflict the comfortable in the public interest. But when media become so beholden to their specific interest groups, when they confuse serving the public interest with serving up what interests their market, then commercial pressures can become a real threat to independence in the true sense of the word.

In African countries these commercial pressures are exacerbated by the internal inequalities within countries, the demarcation of markets in ethnic terms, and the fierce competition with global media formats that are increasingly available to African audiences.

This is therefore an appeal to you as media managers, to consider how the structures and processes that you put in place in your newsrooms can support or undermine editorial independence in the wider, fuller sense of the word. So to conclude – to contribute to robust, dynamic African media that can contribute to social change, we need to see editorial independence not only as an individual matter, but a systemic one, one which asks not only for commitment by individual journalists, but requires a holistic response from journalists, editors and media managers alike. This is the challenge I will leave you with tonight.

Thank you.

Leadership lessons from the Iron Lady

Vilified by some, loved by others – the leadership legacy of Margaret Thatcher is as varied as it is distinct. Said German chancellor Angela Merkel: “She was an extraordinary leader in global politics of her time. I will never forget her part in surmounting the division of Europe and at the end of the Cold War.”

Analysing Thatcher’s eleven and a half years in office, here are three primary leadership lessons that have characterised her style of leadership and are most applicable both to leadership in politics and business today.

Clarity trumps consensus

Shortly after taking office in Downing Street in 1979, Thatcher stated that “I am not a consensus politician. I’m a conviction politician.” From the very beginning, she not only had a clear conviction but also a definite roadmap of where she wanted to take the country.

According to leadership guru Brendon Burchard, the founder of the High Performance Academy and author of the bestselling book “The Charge: Activating the Ten Human Drives that make you feel alive”, clarity is the foremost quality of leaders and the one most cherished by followers.

Part of leadership clarity is the ability to not only be clear in your messaging but also (and more importantly) to be clear in the follow-through. In sharp contrast to many a self-styled leader who profess one thing and practice another, Thatcher was never a turncoat for anybody. In her first year of office, Thatcher countered those that argued she would not be able to stay the course in the face of strong opposition: “To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say. You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.”

Commenting about the legacy of Thatcher, the last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patton, told the BBC that not only did she make Britain governable again but she was the polar opposite to a phenomenon that is dominating politics today, which he called ‘triangulation’: never sticking to principles but always looking for the weakest denominator between two opposing views and then meeting up somewhere in the middle.

Once she told her foreign policy advisor Sir Anthony Parsons she was glad not to belong to his class. He replied, “What class would that be, prime minister?” And she responded, “The upper-middle class, who see everybody’s point of view but have no view of their own.”

Even her contemporary German counterpart, former Chancellor Helmut Kohl (in office 1982-1998), who crossed swords with the Iron Lady many a time – and mostly fiercely over her opposition to Germany’s re-unification in 1989/90 – concedes that he “greatly valued Margaret Thatcher for her incomparable openness, honesty and straightforwardness.”

Instilling Competitive Identity

Competitive Identity, a concept popularised by the author of the Nation Branding Index, Simon Anholt, postulates that for any organisation – be it a corporation or a nation – to succeed in today’s hypercompetitive environment, instilling a clear and compelling identity is key to positioning your brand and winning new markets. Said Charles Powell, one of the closest aides of the Iron Lady: “She changed us all. We went from being a people who saw ourselves as eternally on the downward slide to a nation that was proud to be British again. On the world stage too, she made Britain count once more. She was a startling presence who brought a strong and controversial style to our diplomacy after years of Foreign Office blandness.”

Restoring the country’s Competitive Identity during the Falkland’s crisis, is what turned Thatcher’s ratings during her first term of office from rock bottom and almost guaranteed to lose the next election to a landslide victory in 1983. Contrary to the warnings of her security advisors who insisted on seeking a solution to the crisis through the diplomatic channels and urged her to make concessions to the invading Argentinians, Thatcher realised that resolving this conflict conclusively would go a long way to restoring Britain’s self-confidence.

In an era where nearly 1 in 3 US workers is seriously considering leaving his or her current organisation and another 21% view their employers unfavourably and have rock-bottom scores on key levels of engagement (meaning that over 54% of the entire workforce is actively disengaged from their organisational mission), instilling competitive identity is no longer a nice-to-have option but rather a mission critical must-have.

Willpower determines success

One of Thatcher’s famous quotes was, “Disciplining yourself to do what you know is right and important, although difficult, is the high road to pride, self-esteem, and personal satisfaction.” As politically incorrect as this sounds (and the self-help industry has made us believe for almost one century), recent studies have shown that self-discipline is a key determinant of personal success.

In his book “Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human Strength”, German scientist Roy F Baumeister shares an experiment conducted by Professor Walter Mischel at Stanford University called ‘The Marshmallow Experiment’. In a nutshell, the researchers were studying how a child learns to resist immediate gratification, and they found a creative new way to observe the process in four-year old children. They would bring the children one at a time into a room, show them a marshmallow, and offer them a deal before leaving them alone in the room. The children could eat the marshmallow whenever they wanted to, but if they held off until the experimenter returned, they would get a second marshmallow to eat along with it.

As expected, some children gobbled the marshmallow right away, whilst others tried resisting but couldn’t hold out, and some managed to wait out the whole fifteen minutes for the bigger reward. The ones who succeeded tended to do so by distracting themselves, which seemed an interesting enough finding at the time of the experiments, in the 1960s. Much later, though, Prof Mischel discovered something else thanks to a stroke of good fortune. His own daughters happened to attend the same school, on the Stanford University campus, where the marshmallow experiments took place. Long after he finished the experiments and moved on to other topics, Mischel kept hearing from his daughters about their classmates.

He noticed that the children who had failed to wait for the extra marshmallow seemed to get in more trouble than the others, both in and out of school. To see if there was a pattern, Mischel and his colleagues tracked down hundreds of veterans of the experiments. They found that the ones who had shown the most willpower at age four went on to get better grades and test scores.

The children who had managed to hold out the entire fifteen minutes went on to score 210 points higher on the SAT than the ones who had caved after the first half-minute. The children with willpower grew up to become more popular with their peers and their teachers. They earned higher salaries. They had a lower body-mass index, suggesting that they were less prone to gain weight as middle age encroached. They were less likely to report having had problems with drug abuse.

Clearly, willpower was a key component of Thatcher’s success formula and she alluded to it when she welcomed the English football team outside of 10 Downing Street in 1980, saying that “I’ve got a woman’s ability to stick to a job and get on with it when everyone else walks off and leaves it.”

Paying tribute to Mrs Thatcher, former US Secretary of State, James Baker described the “Thatcher doctrine”: “First, decide what is right, even if that is not always convenient or expedient. Second, let people know what is right, give people a sound direction, trust them – sooner or later they will recognise what is right. Third, be persistent; don’t give up and don’t let up.” Jokingly, Baker added a fourth component of the ‘Thatcher Doctrine’: “Fourth and finally, when negotiations stall, get out the handbag! The solution is always there, usually written on a small piece of paper deep within it.”

Was Margaret Thatcher’s leadership flawless? Certainly not – in fact, her last two years in office saw her fumbling from one mistake to the other, mostly due to her obstinate reluctance to consider views other than her own. However, much can be gleaned from the above leadership principles – especially at a time when consumer confidence in the leadership abilities of their top brass is at a record low globally.

Article first published on memeburn.

Looking for a startup model? Be the change you want to see in the world

The internet has changed the power dynamics of our world. Increases in information, connectivity and high populations of enabled individuals forces us to review the system and reconsider whether it still operates in this brave new world. This is a world where we are all empowered and responsible for defining its future.

A system can be defined as “a set of interacting or independent components forming an integrated whole”. All systems have some level of structure (defined by its component elements), behaviours (such processes, required resources, information etc) and relationships (how the components fit together to allow the system to fulfil the behaviour). Some systems are unconscious such as the universe system. Other, smaller intelligent life designed systems, such as our political, economic, education, social systems have a level of consciousness as provided by the very nature of the human condition. At every level there is a system within a system within a system. It is the dynamic interplay between these systems which results in change (which is neither positive nor negative — just different).

Historically this model has been clear. The rich, by definition, have the best access to information, resources and process control. Conversely, the majority (typically poor) lacked the ability to exert as much influence on the system for the reasons mentioned above. The result is that the poor are pushed around by the rich “top dogs”.

The internet (read: reduced cost of communication) is however changing this dynamic. Through the highly connected and social nature of the internet, its ability for information to be equally available to all users and the ability for fragmented economies to be grouped into scale means that anybody who cares (and has support) can exert as much, if not more, pressure on the system than the current “top dogs” can (read: business, politicians etc).

is enormous evidence to support this — Kickstarter, the resistance to various pieces of legislation and the united nature of consumers in their response to corporate decisions all point to a change in the way that relationships are negotiated.

The high levels of fibre cables coming into Africa, the reduction to smart phone costs, the overall community education about the internet and the roll-out of Metropolitan Area Networks (as is happening in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban) will see a dramatic expansion in the number of individuals who are highly connected and therefore able to “collude” in order to exert force in their collective self-interest.

The implications are potentially enormous. Not just for the top dogs but for all components within the system itself.

As a public we will increasingly have an opportunity to define the future in the way that makes the most sense to our needs (negotiated, through collusion, with much bigger systems than previous possible). Similarly, the top dogs will increasingly receive pressure to behave in the interests of their consumers who validate their existence (be that voters, clients, customers or friends).

Sadly, few top dogs see the advantage to this level of public honest and ongoing development and a stand-off has been created. Brands are seen to be fighting with their supporters — the exact antithesis of what they aim to do as “customer centric” businesses. The result is decreasing levels of trust and enormously losses in supporter retention rates. Unsurprisingly, this is one of the largest issue facing businesses in the 21st Century — one which is expected to get worse as the Millennials come of age and power.

We sit at a precipice. On the one side is an enormously positive opportunity for fully integrated, open and honest decision-making — with the collective interests in mind. On the other is revolution against the existing model of power — as has been seen during the Arab Spring, London Riots and South African civil disobedience.

A number of brands have achieved very positively through their efforts to integrate their supporters views on their vision. Helen Zille (and her use of Twitter Town Hall) is an excellent example of the public’s views being included in her political agenda. Ultimately, a shared vision with a broad support base is being shown to be the most powerful force of the fledgling 21st century.

At present far too many brands position their own short-term self-interest ahead of the longer-term system gain. Power is seen as the outcome and becomes a retardant on many systems where a win-win environment can be built through open dialog and flexibility around the principles which govern the system. We are missing opportunities as a result of ego driven decision-making. We need to come to terms with the fact that exclusive self-interest cannot save humanity.

This applies more broadly than just to the business environment. Consider your relationships with your friends. With politicians. With the legal system. With the environment? What would you change? Where? Do others agree with you? If so — what have you done to try change the system dynamic? (Nothing? Well… then I’m afraid you’re exactly where you want to be).

Ultimately, society needs to make a collective decision. Either we begin to work together to solve the broad inequality through negotiation or we allow the relationship to degrade to the point that nothing but revolution can solve it. This isn’t about power dynamics. It’s about a culture of collective behaviour with the aim of solving the broader environmental, political, military, economic and social issues facing our planet and the future of humanity. The clock is ticking — it’s time to act.

Article first published on memeburn.

5 simple things you can do on LinkedIn to boost your career

If social networks were people then LinkedIn would be the grey-suited accountant sitting at the corner of a party too shy to talk to people. Twitter, of course would be the hipster chick and Facebook would be the jock in the cloakroom talking about his recent conquests.

I recently saw a message posted on Facebook that read “Daughter, if you want to be successful in life, ignore the jock and spend time with the nerds in the class”; and it got me thinking: how often are we ignoring LinkedIn as a powerful tool to further our careers.

LinkedIn isn’t pretty to say the least. At first glance it’s cluttered and confusing and very little actually makes sense. It takes a little navigating and a lot of patience to find what you need, but once you gain the hang of it you’ll realise how incredibly powerful it really is.

There’s the obvious use of keeping LinkedIn as an online résumé, and then there are the few people who use it to find clients (it’s incredibly handy as a tool for business development). It’s also used by many head-hunters and recruiters looking for someone just like you.

It doesn’t matter if you’re a business owner looking for clients, a sales manager looking for business leads or an employee looking for better prospects… at the end of the day it’s not what you know — it’s who you know. And LinkedIn can provide you with the ability to find the who-you-knows.

Here are five ways you can change your LinkedIn experience to make you more attractive to people and increase your ability to attract amazing business and job opportunities.

1. Keep your profile up to date

Your profile is the way people will see you. While it’s important to keep your profile professional, it wouldn’t hurt to add a small bit about yourself and your hobbies. Show people you’re a well-rounded individual.

Use a professional tag-line, but make sure it’s descriptive. “Operations Manager” doesn’t mean much, but “Team Developer and Operations Manager in eCommerce” says a lot more.

Use a professional photograph on your profile. It doesn’t have to be stoic, but it’s not the place to show yourself at a drunken party or shooting a gemsbok on a game farm.

2. Be sparing on your connections

LinkedIn is not the place for you to connect with every Tom, Dick and Harry. It’s the place where you connect with people you personally know, trust and can recommend. If you don’t know the guy and really can’t recommend him, then it’s probably better not to connect with him (unless you’re strategically wanting to connect for a business venture/job move).

3. Recommend others

If you’ve managed your connections properly, take the time out to recommend other people by writing short testimonials. Remember that this is where honesty counts. Your reputation is as much on the line here as theirs. If you cannot honestly recommend the person, then don’t. In fact, remove them as a connection.

4. Ask for recommendations

There’s nothing wrong with asking past clients, colleagues and bosses (who you’re on friendly terms with of course!) to write a recommendation for you on LinkedIn. It gives people a great insight into who you are and how you’ve worked with people in the past.

The good news is that LinkedIn gives you the opportunity to accept or reject a recommendation, so if you’re not happy with a recommendation, you can just delete it.

5. Get involved

LinkedIn is as much about networking as any other business community, club or organisation. Use the LinkedIn group search to find groups you’re interested in, start discussions, ask questions, answer questions. Show that you know what you’re talking about within your community and become the expert in your field. Soon people will be offering you incredible jobs.

Whether you’re looking for a new job, a promotion, more sales or clients – LinkedIn is a powerful tool that cannot be ignored.

Article first published on memeburn.