Tabloids and the South African Journalistic Paradigm
In the previous chapter, we tracked the history of the tabloid genre and associ- ated concepts such as “tabloidization” and “sensationalism.” It emerged that the sensationalism with which tabloids have been associated has been seen as a threat to journalism in various contexts around the world for more than a cen- tury and a half. During this time, dichotomies have been set up to contrast
“proper,” rational news with the emotionalism and sensationalism of pop u lar formats (Grabe, Zhou, and Barnett 2001, 637). Th ese binaries include entertain- ment vs. information, analysis vs. dramatization, infotainment vs. edutainment, human interest vs. public aff airs, situational vs. timeless issues, soft vs. hard news, opinion vs. fact, and unexpected events vs. issue coverage. Th e debate fol- lowing the introduction of new tabloid newspapers to the South African market was also characterized by many of these dichotomies. While the moral panic around tabloid newspapers and the perceived decline of journalistic standards is an ongoing global discourse,1 the criticism against the South African tabloids has also sometimes stemmed from a par tic u lar normative view of the role of the media in a demo cratic, post- apartheid South Africa.
Th is chapter will review the debates that followed the introduction of tabloids to South Africa and convey the main tropes of the discourse, with special atten- tion to the contrast between tabloid journalism and the mainstream press para- digm and how this contrast has been used to sustain the distribution of cultural capital in favor of the mainstream press.
Since the introduction of the fi rst tabloid to the South African market in 2001, and seemingly increasing with each subsequent entrant into this bur- geoning market, debates about tabloids’ role, the reasons for their success, their potential, and their ethics (or lack thereof) have been raging in the pop u lar press.2 Th e fact that these debates largely took place in the pages of the main- stream press might suggest that tabloids were viewed as posing a danger to the image of journalism in the eyes of the public, and therefore had to be dealt with within the domain of the pop u lar press. By playing host to contributors— oft en journalism professors— who derided the tabloids, the mainstream press could re- establish credibility in its own way of doing things. By pointing fi ngers at the new tabloids, critics oft en lost sight of the incremental steps that the main- stream press had been taking toward tabloid style.3 A key issue in these debates
was the responsibility of the tabloids— and of the media at large— to contribute to a demo cratic society. As discussed in the previous chapter, the foreign infl u- ences evident in the South African tabloids were seen as undermining the devel- opment of a homegrown media that could meet demo cratic and developmental challenges.
Th e responses to the new tabloids are interesting not only for what they tell us about the tabloids as such— since similar criticisms have been voiced in “tab- loidization” debates around the world— but for what they tell us about the nor- mative frameworks that the mainstream press employs and the way it positions itself rhetorically within the discourse of democracy. What may emerge from these debates is a picture of the paradigm within which the mainstream press in South Africa operates, and its willingness to examine its own value framework, journalistic routines, and socio- political positioning.
In the debates about tabloids, the norms and assumptions of the mainstream press manifested in a pro cess that could be referred to as “paradigm repair,”
whereby in debating and rejecting the journalistic excesses of the tabloids, a discourse is developed that serves to repair the image of an occupation in trou- ble. Th e tabloid debate gave the mainstream South African print media, which since demo cratization had been undergoing signifi cant shift s and repositioning (as described in chapter 1), the opportunity to redefi ne its own practices, values, and responsibilities. Although it would be going too far to suggest that the tab- loids provided a foil for the mainstream press to intentionally defl ect criticism, it should be borne in mind that the image of the South African mainstream press had been severely tarnished by two inquiries (the Human Rights Commis- sion’s investigation into racism in the media and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s hearings on the media) into their role under apartheid and there- aft er. Around the time of the emergence of the tabloids, the mainstream press also suff ered from several ethical lapses (Haff ajee 2004b). Th e emergence of the tabloids could potentially have provided the opportunity for a wide- ranging debate into the mediated public sphere in post- apartheid South Africa, or spurred a self- refl ective questioning of dominant value frameworks and journalistic routines. Instead, it became clear that the mainstream press would reiterate its position and solidify the per for mance indicators against which it mea sures its success.
Background
Th e print- media landscape in post- 1994 South Africa has been an in- creasingly commercialized one, with stiff competition among market players lo- cally and globally.4 While editorial staff s have become more racially representa- tive, the continued commercial logic of especially the print media meant that the “quality press” remained by and large aimed at lucrative audiences, with voices of the poor largely absent (cf. Jacobs 2004). Because of the correlation between wealth and race established by apartheid (which remained largely in- tact aft er apartheid despite the creation of a wealthy Black elite through “Black
empowerment” policies and the emergence of a Black middle class),5 print media had been catering to a predominantly White and small Black elite audience which would be attractive to high- end advertisers.
While the new tabloids challenged the existing journalistic paradigm with their sensationalist and brash style and their focus on news of interest to poor communities, they also went against the prevailing newspaper business model.
Aft er the Irish- owned In de pen dent Group turned down Deon du Plessis’ pitch for a new tabloid, the conglomerate Naspers bought into the idea and put the paper on the market at the cheap cover price of R1. Th is price undercut the Daily Sun’s closest rival, the Sowetan, and its sister publication, Sunday World, aimed at a Black middle class. Th is led to an accusation by Saki Macozoma, chairman of the Black- empowerment consortium Nail, who then controlled New Africa Pub- lications, the own ers of the Sowetan,6 that Naspers engaged in “uncompetitive behaviour.”7 Th e phenomenal commercial success of this tabloid was partly blamed for the huge circulation losses at the Sowetan.
Criticism, Paradigm Repair, and Normative Maintenance
Since their inception, the South African tabloids have been subjected to constant— and oft en bitter— criticism from mainstream media commentators.8 In turn, tabloid publishers and editors have used public platforms and newspaper columns to defend their publications and articulate their journalistic visions.9 At times, the exchanges between academics and tabloid publishers and editors has taken the form of virulent attacks. One such exchange took place when Guy Berger, in his speech as convenor judge at the Mondi Shanduka Newspaper Jour- nalism awards in 2005, referred to tabloids as “junk- journalism” and advised that the awards should steer well clear of them (Berger 2005b). In his response, one- time Daily Voice news editor Raymond Joseph dismissed Berger’s speech as a “hissy fi t” by a “learned prof.”10
While Berger remained an outspoken critic of the tabloids,11 the journalistic climate changed gradually in subsequent years. At its Annual General Meeting in Cape Town in July 2005, Th e South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) held a vigorous debate on whether tabloid editors should be welcomed into the fold of this professional body. Some editors were disinclined to grant member- ship to tabloid editors, while others spoke in support of how tabloids rekindled a relationship with their communities, but eventually it was determined that tab- loid editors could also be members of SANEF. Ferial Haff ajee, a former chair of SANEF and then- editor of the Mail and Guardian, acknowledges (pers. comm.
2007) that the tone of the 2005 debate was “exclusionary,” but also points out that the climate in SANEF has been “swinging” in subsequent years as a result of in- ternal diff erences of opinion. She adds that SANEF alone was not to blame for the stand- off , as there was “no great rush from the tabloids to join SANEF.” Du Plessis (pers. comm. 2007), for example, is indeed not interested in participating in SANEF’s activities, because the or ga ni za tion “really isn’t part of my game plan anymore” (ibid.):
No, we’re not a member of SANEF, Th emba [Khumalo, the editor] doesn’t go. You know, I don’t mind, but it’s not like anything like that drives me anymore. I’m now in my mid- 50s, I’ve really done that whole corporate journalism thing, there’s no vanities left about that. I’m very interested in taking the paper to 600,000 on an average, that’s the driver. Th e rest is really extraneous. . . . I think they [SANEF] got stranded in the mid- 90s, they missed the boat in the early 2000s, because these older papers have to— and I don’t envy them— take with them an older audience which they had before, I don’t have that problem. Our whole audience is new, and we can deal with one type of person.
Th e regional editor of Son, Andrew Koopman, as well as the tabloid’s national editor, Ingo Capraro, are non- participating members of SANEF. Koopman (pers.
comm. 2007) also notes a change in attitude among mainstream journalists’ at- titudes toward tabloids:
I belong to SANEF but I don’t go to the meetings. I think they are now starting to respect us more. In the beginning we were told we did “gutter journalism,” but we have scooped them so oft en that they reluctantly look down on us. Some people will have that perception, but I think most of them now see us as their equal. Oft en journalists from Die Burger phone our journalists to get contacts of ideas for stories.
I think the respect is returning. Th ere are some individuals that look down on tabloids, but we are getting respect.
Yet this respect is diluted. SANEF’s eventual welcoming gesture was counter- balanced, in a “two- handed, and potentially contradictory” way by a reaffi rma- tion of the or ga ni za tion’s commitment to “journalistic integrity, tolerance and accountability” which refl ected the tension between diff erent positions in the or ga ni za tion.12 Th ree years later, in 2008, the climate has changed so much that a new category for tabloid journalism was created at the Mondi Shanduka Newspaper Journalism awards over which Berger was still presiding. Ironically, no winner was appointed because the tabloid entries were apparently seen as too closely resembling mainstream journalism. “Th ere are a great many bold, innovative and entertaining pages every day in the tabloid press, but they were not among the entries, which were dominated by hard news reporting or feature writing of a kind that was not specifi c to pop u lar journalism,” Berger was quoted as saying.13 Tensions between mainstream and tabloid journalists are likely to remain a feature of the journalistic environment in South Africa, as they have been in journalistic debates around the world where the mainstream media of- ten makes a scapegoat of pop u lar culture (Scharrer, Weidman, and Bissell 2003).
At the same time, it is important not to see the various positions in these de- bates as intractable, but as part of an ongoing negotiation and redefi nition of the media’s role in a transitional democracy. As the changing place of tabloid jour- nalism within the Mondi Shanduka awards indicates, attitudes toward tabloid journalism are bound to remain in fl ux. Th is pro cess of professional redefi ni- tion (which does not always mean a shift in professional identity, but oft en the opposite— namely, a reaffi rmation of existing positions) is likely to intensify as the defi nition of journalism changes globally in response to technological
innovation, the rise of citizen journalism, and increased commercial pressure on print media.
Because the criticism directed against tabloids indicates the defi ning lines of professional journalism in post- apartheid South Africa, as well as the normative framework within which this journalism is cast, it is worth taking a closer look at the main areas of criticism and how these were articulated. Th e bulk of the criti- cism can be grouped into two main categories: the perceived low quality of jour- nalism practiced by these publications, and concerns about the lack of ethical standards guiding the actions of tabloid journalists.
Quality of Journalism
A central question in examining the eff ect of the emergence of new tab- loids on South Africa’s mainstream journalistic paradigm is whether the ac- knowledgement of tabloids as legitimate newspapers succeeds in turning the mainstream press’s gaze upon itself. Th e (albeit reluctant) ac cep tance of tabloids into the journalistic fold by the establishment might suggest a certain openness to diff erent journalistic styles and approaches. At the same time, such ac cep tance could serve to reaffi rm that the dominant journalistic paradigm is the most suit- able for meeting the challenges of journalism in the young democracy. It could also banish tabloids into a popular- journalism ghetto without taking seriously the challenge they pose to mainstream journalism in the country.
In her capacity as then- chair of SANEF, Ferial Haff ajee [pers. comm. 2007], was positive about the potential rejuvenation that tabloids could bring to the country’s journalism, saying,
Tabloids have been on the SANEF agenda for the last couple of years because it is most interesting what is happening in SA journalism. Th ere has been a complete shakeup. Tabloids are the big media story. . . . Th ey encourage a reading public, they act as a watchdog, and they keep power on its toes. We in the mainstream media have a lot to learn! Maybe they can also learn from our codes and ethics etc.
Berger seems less amenable to tabloid infl uence,14 and maintains that the dominant paradigm is the one to be followed by pop u lar newspapers. He holds up the example of the Sowetan as a paper that wants to follow a pop u lar approach but remained “at root . . . factual.” Th e Sowetan in fact has been the one paper in the country that has been most clearly deserted by its readers in favor of the new tabloid the Daily Sun because it had turned its attention away from “the grass- roots” to the “more affl uent readers.”15 Berger invokes the demo cratic role of journalism in South Africa when he slams tabloids as being “a country away from credible journalism.” For him, tabloid writing is “the stuff of cheap fi ction,”
its “crass archetypal narratives” falling short of “at least some of the basics of journalism.” “Th e problem,” he says, “is that some tabloidism gives a bad name to this genre of journalism as a whole.”16 Th ese comments are clearly aimed at up- holding existing journalistic practices as the standard against which tabloid
journalism should be mea sured in an attempt to stave off the decline of stan- dards through “tabloidization.” Th e question arises whether the only way for tabloids to attain this benchmark— which remains unchanged and does not ac- knowledge any challenge from the tabloids to its own professional practices and identity— would be to cease being tabloids altogether.
In an attack on tabloids in the mainstream newspaper Beeld, Froneman spends considerable attention on the issue of defi nition. “We have to understand what tabloid journalism is; who the tabloids are; where it comes from; how it in- fl uences us all; and how we can respond to it.”17
He defi nes the characteristics of tabloid journalism in terms of content and pre sen ta tion, but also criticizes tabloids’ neglect of serious news in favor of the sensational and foresees the superfi cialization of public discourse. Signifi cant in the context of self- refl exivity as a characteristic of paradigm repair is his appeal to readers as well as journalists to “urgently refl ect” on these issues. For Frone- man, therefore, mainstream journalism is largely defi ned in terms of its gravity and depth. While he acknowledges that elements of tabloid journalism can also be found in mainstream Sunday newspapers or magazines like Huisgenoot/You and People, he dichotomizes between journalism that wants to entertain and journalism that wants to inform.
While Rabe (2005) concentrates on ethical issues, she couples ethical stan- dards (the decline of which has been seen as one of the main detrimental eff ects tabloids could have on journalism) with journalistic quality, stating, “Responsible journalism is good journalism. Good journalism is responsible journalism.” Th e implication is that if tabloids fall short of the standards of “responsible journal- ism,” they lose any journalistic merit they might have laid claim to: “Tabloids—
and the . . . tabloidisation of the media— are the antithesis of good journalism”
(ibid.). In this criticism, ethical norms are used as tools to defi ne the occupation of journalism,18 and the implication is that adherence to a set of professional criteria for ethical behavior defi ne what good journalism is. Th e problem with such a defi - nition is that it fails to spell out which aspects of tabloid journalism are merely characteristics of the tabloid genre, having to do with taste and preference, and which have fundamentally ethical implications. While genre- specifi c aspects like sensationalism, melodrama, and brash pre sen ta tion might fl y in the face of main- stream journalism’s claims to distance and “balance” (ibid.), it is debatable whether these characteristics are by defi nition unethical.
Ethical issues with tabloids more clearly come into play in cases such as the lack of source verifi cation. Anton Harber quips, “ ‘I need another source to verify the snake- rape story,’ is not something one hears in a good tabloid newsroom.”19 In these cases it becomes more diffi cult to decide whether stories about rapes committed by snakes or gorillas actually mislead their readers (thus overstepping an ethical line),20 or whether they are so clearly fi ctional as to be understood by their readers as fantasy and diversion, which only makes up a part of tabloids’
overall off ering (see chapter 6 for a discussion of reader responses). Th e complex- ity of these questions around ethics and genre notwithstanding, the criticism of South African tabloids has for the most part centered around journalistic ethics.