|
|
airlines
Rainbow radio goes gagga?
SWEEPING changes made to the SABC flagship radio station, SAfm, have generated much static interference. The bold transition has stirred up a veritable W.A.S.P.'s nest and criticism has monopolised the letters pages of the established English Press ever since. The response from the SAfm camp was immediate: the complainants were racists and could remain "switched off." Obviously, not everybody was on the same wavelength. Liza Stewart tuned into the debate in stereo to hear both sides of the story.
The SAfm fracas is so coloured with emotion that some back-tracking is required to understand the revolution of the rainbow radio.
Since its inception in 1936, the English National Public Service in South Africa, with its predominantly BBC format, has had an impressive track record of catering for the needs of a small English elite. As Nigel Vermaas, Programme Manager, states, "Radio South Africa was very much the station for the 'hobbyist and lobbyist.'"
However, as research shows, the listenership of the old Radio South Africa was stagnant, possibly declining, with 63 percent of the audience being over fifty years of age and 83 percent being white. The station failed to access potential listeners in the broader English-speaking population: mainly urbanised Black, Coloured and Indian people.
But why expand? When Radio South Africa was abruptly taken off the air, many infuriated listeners demanded why "their station" was targeted. "No other station has had to endure Mr Reddy’s grand design. Would Radio Xhosa listeners settle for second and third language Xhosa presenters and an autocratic reorganisation of programmes?" wrote one irate listener.
For those supportive of SAfm, it’s a matter of staying in tune with political developments in the country. The station boasts a network of 130 transmitters, affording it the widest coverage (approximately 95 percent) throughout the republic. As a public broadcaster with these resources at its disposal, a narrow listenership could not be justified. The station decided to undergo a major restructuring to attract the whole spectrum of the rainbow nation.
According to station manager, Jack Mullen, the SAfm management has wanted to transform the station for many years. Despite furtive changes made in 1986, the first concrete opportunity to revamp the station occurred with the new dispensation - when Govin Reddy gave them the green light for a complete facelift.
Turning-on, switching-off
The broader target market was identified as "listeners between the ages of 30 and 55 who desire to be entertained or receive information in the English language." The simple statement belies the immense difficulties involved in turning on a widely diverse English population.
Charles Leonard, Head of Current Affairs at the station, claims that as a primary objective, the station wishes to reflect the new nation. "We are here. We are proud to be part of Africa." A major reshuffling ensued to put some kick into the radio. The actuality programmes had to be LIVEened up. Leonard calls it "Daring radio. There are a lot more live interviews instead of the stale, packaged-type news we used to have in the past. Our emphasis is on good journalism, presented by journalists who can understand and interpret the news. The trained voice-artists of the past couldn’t react to the news. We need to keep our fingers on the pulse of events."
The selection of music had to be jazzed up to incorporate a broader range of tastes - from Lucky to Luciano; from Bach to Black Mambazo to Brubeck. Even the jingles were "South Africanised" by Kalahari Surfer, Warwick Swinney, a subversive musician in the PW Botha era.
Mullen admits, "It is a mammoth task to try to appeal to a 'cross-cultural English speaker' in such a divergent society as South Africa. What we are doing is pioneering. In a few years time we believe that, firstly, society will be less diverse than it is now and, secondly, that others will be doing what we’re doing."
These changes have met with vociferous resistance from the established audience. The February/March AMPS diaries indicate a 25 percent loss in the audience (92 000). However, the results are questionable because SAfm was launched in the middle of the survey period.
In an independent survey (Urban/Metropolitan) conducted by Markinor during May and June, there was no audience loss of any significance and the profile remained the same. However, the survey also reflected that 14 percent of the listeners were dissatisfied with SAfm and that their fingers were hovering nervously over the tuning dial.
Mullen says in his defence that to have a station’s profile change after three months is wishful thinking. "Building listenership is a long-term project of up to five years. We are prepared, although not pleased, to lose listeners."
A 50 percent drop in listenership was anticipated in initial market research, to be replaced by a concomitant penetration into the black market. However, the Markinor results reflect that Black listenership has remained disquietingly constant.
Responding to this, Vermaas says there is no new strategy to attract listeners from the emerging Black market "except to make adjustments in content and presentation."
Radio Gagga and Queen’s English
Markinor research isolated the poor standard of English as the dominant objection to the fledgling station. Colourful quotes verify this sentiment: "Mr Reddy seems determined to continue with his policy of murdering the English language."
Mullen concedes that in many cases the criticism is valid. However, he adds that this only applies to certain areas of their broadcasting - notably the Current Affairs and News programmes.
"It is something which is being addressed through training and weeding out. In Current Affairs programmes, there is less reliance on reporters in the field and more emphasis is placed on 'live interviews' conducted by programme presenters." However, he emphasises that the Current Affairs programmes do not represent the whole station but a mere 16 percent of their weekly airtime.
"Generally speaking, our broadcasts are presented, we believe, with credibility and intelligibility; in user-friendly English that can by no stretch of the imagination be called poor."
Leonard was caustic: "Those who whinge about accent and pronunciation are racists ... let us rather call them colonialists, old South Africans or patronising euro-centrics."
Current Affairs producer Kenosi Modisani, as quoted in The Independent, was more blunt: "If they don’t like it they can go back to England." A Sowetan reader made a similar attack: "The only place for this band of English speakers is an English Volkstaat."
This caused much indignation in the wasp’s nest: "... it was the English speaking South African community which kept the flame of liberal values burning during the dark years of National Party rule," one Sunday Times reader responded.
Later, however, the frequency of criticism was modulated by good arguments. The problem, many said, wasn’t a matter of accent but rather a lack of intelligible reading due to inadequate training.
Shifting the accent
Peter Titlestad, President of the English Academy of South Africa, asserts: "The launch of SAfm was bungled through haste and lack of training. The inadequate training applies to both white and black announcers...The lack of professionalism has been an insult to all, black and white."
Mullen acknowledges Titlestad’s point. "If what is said by an announcer is not intelligible then there is no point in broadcasting it." He adds, however, that "there is no absolute standard. Intelligibility depends on what the listener’s ear is attuned to."
"What we need to achieve is some kind of universal intelligibility which is understood by ALL South Africans. And this does not mean, we hope, that the black presenters should be attempting to sound like white presenters."
Mullen is quite upfront when he admits that "Some of our staff lack in-depth training" but hastens to add that the SABC’s training department is undergoing changes which will be beneficial to all.
Significant progress has already been made. Marcus Rosenbaum of National Public Radio in the United States conducted a number of training seminars with staff involved in News and Current Affairs. There have also been recent visits by BBC producers who conducted courses in their drama department, with special emphasis on documentary making. John Highveld of ABC has devoted much of his time to the training of Current Affairs staff.
Affirmative action is another oft quoted reason for the perceived lack of professionalism. Nationalist legislator of the Western Cape, Annette Reinecke, slated SAfm as being a "perfect example of affirmative action applied incorrectly."
Mullen contests this. "Affirmative action is truly not a factor here...We have a black producer in Talks and Magazines who, apart from other training, has been working in an assistant production area for well over a year, and only last month was given full responsibility for producing a programme. With good results."
Speak news not Newsspeak
No attack on the SABC is complete without the old argument that it is a mouthpiece of the government. Reinecke accuses the SABC’s Executive Chief of Radio, Govin Reddy, as being "politically motivated".
Mullen’s response to this is unambiguous: "The station is certainly not a government mouthpiece. You have only to listen to our programmes to hear frequent criticism of government actions... unlike the days of yore."
He is aware that a number of critics believe that because the SABC was a propaganda tool for the government during the National Party regime, it follows that an ANC-led Government of National Unity would follow a similar strategy.
"This is clearly a fallacious corollary," he asserts. "For a start, the Board of the SABC was chosen by an independent board after public hearings."
WASPs also find the buzz on the radio caused by excessive political correctness irritating. Mullen concedes that "We are often too politically correct. In this phase of South Africa’s history, where people are finding each other, old wounds and aggression are still under the surface."
The negative feedback reflected in the Markinor research forced a rethink in the SAfm fold. Mullen asserts however, "We have not backtracked. We have simply responded to reasonable criticism as we said we would...We will not revert to being a Radio South Africa clone."
The predominance of "boring twaddle" and "talk" is one of the largest criticisms levelled as the programme schedule. Many of the listeners resist the idea of "another 702."
Vermaas responds: " Neither do we want another 702. Our phone-ins are handled quite differently from 702, who, by and large, rely on personalities of the hosts to entertain and field the calls."
He adds that SAfm, as a Public Service Broadcaster, "believes in responsible discussion of topics. If that sounds a bit pompous, so be it!"
But being a public broadcaster does have its drawbacks. As far as programme content is concerned, it is often accused of being too heavy and politically correct. "With some justification," says Vermaas. "Programmes about the RDP are worthy but - finally - boring...Our potential audience (chiefly black) would not, we feel, find us too heavy, but would find us more inclusive, and more relevant."
But SAfm is shedding its audience: "Most of all, we would like to listen to what we want to hear and not what Auckland Park so misguidedly thinks we want," wrote a "switched-off" listener to The Argus. Vermaas acquiesces the need to entertain: "We’re still trying to get it right ... Next year, maybe the year after that, we’ll be entertaining while we inform, and making even the RDP sound like fun."
Radio what’s new?
As the SABC has no plans to accommodate the older English community - the primary source of static on the SAfm debate - this audience has resorted to dial-hopping in the hope of finding a community station attuned to their needs.
Does management at SAfm perceive competition from more narrowly targeted community radio stations as a threat? Mullen agrees that "depending on their target, local and community stations could pose a threat to our listenership."
But they don’t expect to lose listenership throughout the day. "We expect many of our listeners to return for the current affairs programmes. SAfm continues to give advice to proposed community stations, "especially if their target isn’t ours."
Money Matters
The crucial question many disgruntled listeners pose with glee is whether SAfm will remain commercially viable with its reduced listenership. Have advertisers withdrawn support?
According to Mullen, SAfm did experience quite a significant drop in April revenue. However, they almost made budget in May and June. He emphasises that "as a public broadcaster, our bottom line is not commercial viability, although we obviously need income to off-set our expenditure."
Furthermore, they have had positive support from the black press and many black opinion-makers in the emergent business sector are interviewed regularly. They have not received a "flood of black advertisers" but did not expect this either.
Someone still loves you
Market research was not entirely damning of the new station. Listeners said they enjoyed the station because it was non-racial and its news was more relevant than before.
Leonard wryly comments that all the press has certainly helped with their publicity campaigns. "At least we’re on the map," he says.
Hugh Pope of The Independent writes that the introduction of live interviews and international coverage that no longer leap-frogs over the rest of Africa to Western capitals, has attracted opinion-formers.
It also seems SAfm is gradually attracting black listeners who feel more included. One satisfied new listener wrote: "I am black, English speaking and was also a fan of Radio South Africa but it never gave me a sense of belonging... I can’t believe how much I enjoy the new station. I even participated in a phone-in because I could relate to the topic. This is my station!"
With all the mud-slinging, it’s rather difficult to gaze into the murky crystal ball and predict the future of SAfm. As the management sighs, "It’s early days yet."
But they are realistic about the storms on the airwaves. "SAfm is an attempt to broadcast to all South African English-speakers. This is a long term project. We fully expect rough weather for maybe up to two years; then we expect the listenership to grow once more, achieving 800 000 by the end of the century!"
Who knows? Perhaps in the words of the late Freddie Mercury, SAfm, "You’ve yet to have your finest hour."
|
[ Tuisblad ] [ Publikasies ] [ Inhoud / Index ] [ Publications ] [ Home Page ] |
|