4.1. Investigación de mercado:
4.1.2. Marco muestral:
The media plays a pivotal role in influencing the policy process since it is a conduit that transmits the flow of information between policymakers and social forces (Freedman, 2008).
Fundamentally,
The problem is that the media form a largely unaccountable force and this policymaking influence is wielded without a democratic mandate and reserved for some of the wealthiest and most powerful corporate figures, who have their own economic and ideological interest (Freedman , 2008: 87).
In this regard, the media is central in influencing the policy process. At the core of the corporate media’s ability to influence the policy discourse is the role of media professionals and the ideology that underpins their work. Indeed, the ideologies of editors and reporters are
quite similar, just as is the case with journalists and most of their sources, and thus in conflict situations “hegemonic boundaries are not overstepped” (Van Dijk, 2009). These aspects are presented in detail in Chapters 6, 7, 8 and 9. Indeed, the representation of the policy discourse is influenced by the fact that the “work of hegemony, all in all, consist of imposing standardized assumption over events and conditions that must be ‘covered’ by the dictates of the prevailing in news standards” (Gitlin, 1980: 264). It is this conformity that serves to advance the agenda of powerful societal interests, and this is achieved through media personnel’s internalisation of priorities and definition of newsworthiness that conform to the institution’s policies (Herman and Chomsky, 2002).
A cursory glance at major newspapers reveals a trend whereby the corporate press, in its endeavour to consistently cover the discourse, reproduces the interpretations which serve the interests of the ruling class. Furthermore, it is quite apparent that the corporate media is “a field of ideological struggle” where various perspectives are advanced (Hall et al., 1978). For example, most mainstream corporate newspapers took a keen interest in the nationalisation discourse, particularly in 2011, and utilised various strategies in their coverage. Publications such as Business Day provided consistent coverage of the discourse, albeit from the business perspective as was to be expected. The publication seeks to bring in-depth analysis to this subject as reflected in the article “Nationalisation” by Sim Tshabalala, joint Chief Executive of the Standard Bank Group and Chief Executive of Standard Bank South Africa; he posits that the proposals advanced by the ANCYL
…are the effects of the pain and anger caused by persistent grinding poverty for millions, deep-rooted mass unemployment, and a level of inequality that is both morally unacceptable and constitutes a real threat to social cohesion. The statistics are chilling: 65% of South Africans live on less the R550 a month – less than a monthly satellite TV subscription. 12%
are desperately poor, struggling to survive on R150 a month. One in five children shows signs of malnutrition. The unemployment rate for black South Africans under 30 is over 50%. Two-thirds of 15-to-30 year olds who want work have never been able to find a job. The richest 10% of South Africans earn more than the other 90% combined. Few would deny that we are sitting on a powder keg which is ready to explode for there are plenty of struck matches around (Tshabalala, 2011).
Although, it would appear that such articles present a balanced view of the discourse, there is a caveat as is to be expected from a business publication:
The Youth League is therefore entirely right to be campaigning for ‘economic freedom in our lifetime.’ The real question is whether their ideas are a sagacious way to achieve this freedom.
The definitive barrier to the nationalisation proposal is its expense and impracticality.
Assuming that the proposal would be executed by way of nationalisation with fair compensation, then the question arises: How are the banks to be paid for? The total market capitalisation of South Africa’s five biggest banks comes to about R500 billion, which is more than half of the government’s total annual expenditure in 2011 (Tshabalala, 2011).
It is not too difficult to see that, through such articles, the publication valorises the views of one school of thought on nationalisation. Other publications such as FinWeek follow this line of approach with articles such as “Motsepe: Nationalisation does not work” on 1 September 2011, where the mining magnate, Patrice Motsepe is cited as accusing the business community of impotency for its inability to influence policy decisions such as the debate over nationalisation:
In a Johannesburg presentation on Wednesday Motsepe, who a year ago drew harsh criticism for declining to take a stand on the nationalisation of the mining industry, bluntly stated that the nationalisation debate would not be held in any developed country because experience had repeatedly proved that it did not work (Sake24, 1 September 2011).
However, mainstream publications such as the Mail & Guardian present an alternative perspective. For example, the article “Oil together now: Lessons on nationalisation from Norway” by Mmanaledi Mataboge presents Norway as a good example of nationalisation that, when managed correctly, could be a good idea:
The oil-rich country nationalised this natural resource in 1972, two years after foreign companies started exploring oil off Norway’s coast. With the money made from oil sales invested in more than 8 600 listed companies across the world, Norway created a wide net of social welfare services that provide free education, healthcare and pensions to all the country’s citizens (Mataboge, 2011).
The New Age, even though this publication does not form part of the sample of this research study, also presents an interesting posture towards the discourse. For example, in its editorial opinion of 14 October 2012 the paper argues that something needs to give in the management of the country’s mineral resources. “The nationalisation debate only emphasised the need for more equitable management of these resources. It seems as if the idea of introducing a super profits tax is emerging to rival nationalisation as an option to socialise the mining industry”
(New Age, 12 October 2012). The paper argues that this is the option that should be explored in the nationalisation of mines discourse,
as it seems to be a middle of the road solution – the two pole positions dominating the debate hold no workable solutions. ... with all its weaknesses, private capital has a role to play and whoever holds the opposite view is a fool. But it is true that, left to its own devices, private capital will do what it does best – maximise profit through squeezing everyone else. There is no doubt that the mining industry will try to fight the super tax proposition (New Age, 12 October 2012).
The editorial goes on to urge the mining industry to open its heart to this idea if it is serious about infusing some semblance of social justice in its DNA. Indeed, the coverage of nationalisation by South Africa’s corporate media reflects that the media plays a central role in the policy process. In fact, the corporate media is not just used as a platform to cover the varying views on the discourse, but it played a crucial role in the debate itself. It is this role, as articulated in the assumptions of this research study that structural factors such as ownership influence the representation of the discourse, which this thesis investigates.
2.6 Conclusion
This chapter has presented a case that fundamentally there are two schools of thought on nationalisation. While the proponents argue that nationalisation will redress the contradictions of capitalism through equitable distribution of resources thereby having an impact on social inequality, the detractors portray nationalisation as a failed and compromised economic policy largely associated with despots (Keeton and Beer, 2011).
Certainly, the former argument finds expression in the South African context characterised by high levels of social inequality. Indeed, it is these competing ideas that inform the representation of the discourse in the corporate media.
The chapter has also shown that, in the contemporary discourse in South Africa, these schools of thought have been galvanised by the ANCYL’s (2010) calls contained in its discussion document and congress resolutions. The thesis anticipates that the corporate media will draw on the cogent arguments advanced in the documents, which should provide the corporate press with a number of topics to consider for coverage. The chapter has also outlined the proposals presented by the ANCYL in its document and, once more, these present interesting views. Naturally, it should be expected that the media will gravitate towards this document as a point of reference on the nationalisation discourse. In particular, the well-considered options on the establishment of a State Mining Company, the expropriation model in line with the Constitution, and the amendment of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources
Development Act present opportunity for critical content. On numerous occasions the documents either calls for actions that are within the ambit of the Constitution or a responsible use of political power by the governing party – the ANC. Thus, whereas the corporate media plays a pivotal role in shaping the representation of policy discourse (Freedman, 2008), it is expected that in the representation of the discourse such points will be considered.
In light of the latter point, the chapter has shown that the nationalisation discourse is fundamentally a policy discourse taking place in a neo-liberal environment. Indeed, as reflected in the assumptions of this research study, the corporate media is part of the market forces and thus its representation of ideological discourse is influenced by such factors.
Furthermore, and because of the underdevelopment in South Africa characterised by high levels of poverty, unemployment and inequality, the chapter has presented a case on why nationalisation is essentially a developmental issue. This reality coupled with neo-liberal hegemony are some of the factors that the developmental policy process has to contend with.
The chapter has also presented the South African corporate media landscape as characterised by its development during various historical epochs up to the current post-apartheid democratic dispensation. At a high level, the posture and the approach of the corporate media to the nationalisation discourse is presented as an entry to the analysis of this representation.
Indeed, the chapter has portrayed a corporate press that is keenly interested and applies various tactics to present the discourse.