[DEBATE] : Business Media: The real agenda-setters

[Sean Jacobs]

Business Media: The real agenda-setters
Author: Wadim Schreiner
Publish: 01 February 2008

Media Tenor's Wadim Schreiner looks forward to the day business media 
will admit to having a particular agenda.

At a conference at the Gordon Institute of Business Science a few 
months ago, a fellow journalist colleague was astonished at the notion 
that individual journalists possibly have agendas. She admitted that 
editors might be pushing for certain topics, but individual 
journalists, no, that was just simply impossible as they are primarily 
reporting on the facts of the day and the timing of printing deadlines 
would never allow anything sinister. I am convinced that such agendas 
exist, and I am also not sure why it should be considered sinister.

As much as President Thabo Mbeki or ANC President Jacob Zuma might 
wish, media in South Africa will not be neutral, and should for that 
matter never be. But what is missing though is media admitting to their 
impartiality.

Instead, every attack on the media is considered an attack on media 
freedom, an often convenient justification in order to avoid potential 
consequences. Sadly, those individuals or organisations attacked by the 
media conversely, don't have similar abstract and vague concepts such 
as media freedom to hide behind. I think it is far more unethical to 
claim being objective when inherently not, than admitting to reporting 
in a biased manner and with an agenda.

For those observing media from a scientific and academic point of view, 
2007 has been pure excitement. For those, who were the focus of media 
attention, 2007 should have served as a serious wake-up call: the South 
African media are alive, kicking ¨C and getting better at doing it by 
the day.

Business media lead in critical reporting

For the above mentioned Gibs conference, I researched the content of 
political coverage in a selection of South African print and electronic 
media, with the aim of identifying certain emerging trends and 
patterns: which media really matter when it comes to shaping an agenda? 
What role did television play? Firstly, coverage on the government 
generally has become considerably more negative, starting in November 
2004 (with a rating score of 50 on a scale of one to 100), dropping to 
41 in August and September 2007.

A sure catalyst here were the focus on the Schabir Shaik as well as the 
Zuma trials and the subsequent dismissal of the latter as deputy 
president, and later the handling of Health Minister Manto 
Tshabalala-Msimang's dismissal of her deputy. Since then, it is all the 
way down, a trend confirmed by Markinor's survey on government 
performance.

But if one thinks that it has been largely the likes of the Mail & 
Guardian or Sunday Times that have been driving negative coverage 
against government or the president, this is not the case. It has been 
primarily business media lashing out negative sentiment, particularly 
towards the president.

While all media types, except SABC TV news, showed considerable more 
negative coverage on the president, financial media had the highest 
share with almost one-fifth more negative coverage than positive. This 
was found to be a trend, starting in mid-2005 and continuing all the 
way towards the end of 2007. Non-financial media such as The Star or 
the Citizen, did not increase either volume or tone of coverage to the 
same extent as financial media.

In terms of volume, Business Day drove the largest coverage of debate 
around government and the president in particular, but this is not 
surprising considering that it is the only dedicated daily financial 
medium. Both Sake and Business Report abstained largely from making any 
opinionated comments, while both FinWeek and FM raised criticism 
equally.

Looking at the coverage of Business Day in particular and its use of 
commentators and analysts on various issues around political and 
business policies, it is impossible to argue that this type of coverage 
has been driven by audience demand. Surely, the audience of Business 
Day, Financial Mail, FinWeek and Sake are more or less similar in terms 
of LSM, age, income, colour, blood group or any of the other more or 
less useful definitions of a target audience.

I have serious doubts that (Business Day's) Peter Bruce increased his 
team of columnists on the basis of so-called reader demand, with the 
same audience begging Sake's Charles Naud¨¦ to go easy on the president, 
or (the SABC's) Snuki Zikalala's alleged lack of criticism of the 
president or the government because viewers did not want to see some of 
the negative sides of the president.

It might be time that media admit that there is an agenda they pursue.

And there is nothing wrong with it, even though the concept might seem 
a bit foreign to us here in South Africa.

Under-estimated by politicians?

Coverage in Sunday Times raises prolonged debates amongst many groups, 
but it is the point-targeted agendas of the likes of Business Day, 
Financial Mail, and to a lesser extent Sake and FinWeek that raise the 
blood pressure of those people who really impact on the development of 
the country: business and political leaders.

The influence exercised by business media has considerably greater 
impact on the medium to long term economic and social development of 
the country than most of the other publications, no matter how large 
they are.

Sure, international media had a field day when Sunday Times broke the 
story about Tshabalala-Msimang's alleged misconducts, but primarily 
because it had fed into the international media's notion of a corrupt 
and incapable Africa. The real damage would be extensive as continuous 
negative coverage on economic, political and financial issues in 
business publications would cause investor concerns ¨C and ultimately 
damaging the long term prospects of the country.

Ministers come and go and are considered corrupt and liars all over the 
world ¨C investors know this. But when business media, possibly 
perceived as a voice of peers, are changing their coverage, this should 
get political leaders really jittery. Instead, political leaders often 
focus their attention on non-financial media's coverage of government, 
as these media are read by the constituencies. They are equally 
obsessed with radio and consider appearance on various shows as the 
ultimate tool to impact on the public perception. But while it is 
politically important that the wider public has the "right" information 
around social delivery, the public in South Africa is likely to 
continue voting for the ANC, delivery or non delivery. Those entities 
that matter in terms of policy shaping, are likely to use business 
media to communicate their messages.

Indeed, we should be looking forward to this year: It will be joyous to 
watch the continuous power play between the media and government, but 
it will be the business media that should be particularly closely 
observed. I personally will be looking forward to the day business 
media will admit to having a particular agenda, whatever that agenda 
is. I might not always agree with the agenda, but at least I know where 
they stand. Kind of the way business media felt initially about Mbeki: 
better the devil you know...


Wadim Schreiner is the CEO of Media Tenor SA.


¡ö This is an edited version of The Media magazine's February cover 
story. This edition's content will be archived on TheMediaOnline by 15 
February.

--------------------------------------------
Sean Jacobs
http://theleoafricanus.com