It’s been an eventful few months for the Media Leadership Think Tank (MLTT) — from hosting the CTRL+J Africa conference at GIBS in September to celebrating the graduation of the first cohort from our Executive Programme in Media Leadership just two weeks ago.
As part of the MLTT’s ongoing work on media, tech policy and competition, we also recently co-hosted a discussion with the Wits Centre for Journalism on the regulation of audiovisual media services in India and South Africa.
The conversation, moderated by Thandi Smith, featured Prof Vibodh Parthasarathi and myself, and coincided with South Africa’s renewed review of its broadcasting and audiovisual framework. Public comment on the Draft White Paper on Audio and Audiovisual Media Services (version 3) closed in September.
🎥 Watch the full discussion above — with an introduction by Dinesh Balliah.
The publication of the current Draft White Paper is positive — if only in the sense that the process has been revived — but it is still very short on detail. Overall, this third draft lacks clear policy proposals and a coherent licensing framework that would extend jurisdiction over streaming and on-demand services..
A big concern is that the SABC has been left out altogether. While the 2020 Draft White Paper integrated the SABC within the general policy review, the Department of Communications and Digital Technology has sought advice on a new SABC funding model through a parallel process. This won’t be a problem if recommendations from this process are eventually integrated into an omnibus policy covering both public service media and a new framework for audiovisual media services.
South Africa’s broadcasting and audiovisual market is trapped in a regulatory time capsule. For example, the SABC today operates 19 radio stations, six linear television channels, and a streaming app, which carries all these services and more. Yet the public broadcaster is expected to run this 2025 media portfolio on a ’90s regulatory operating system. The SABC’s policy framework — and that governing the wider South African broadcasting industry — remains frozen in time, unchanged for three decades despite the transformative impact of the internet, mobile, and now AI.
We urgently need a technology-neutral policy and legislative framework that covers all audiovisual media services, including the SABC.
Policy should also include provisions for access and affordability. Over seventy percent of South Africans access the internet through mobile phones, yet many can’t afford the data needed for streaming. Any conversation about audiovisual regulation must take data affordability into account because it directly affects who can access streaming services.
Prof Parthasarathi shared valuable insights on how fragmented mandates and overlapping regulators in India have slowed reform there. His reflections made clear how difficult, yet essential, it is to bring together legacy broadcasting rules with the realities of a digital environment.
We also discussed Europe’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive, together with its newer Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, which have already created clear obligations for large digital platforms.
Many have asked if companies like Netflix and Google are complying with these EU laws it should surely not be a problem for South Africa to adopt similar measures?
Prof Parthasarathi reminded us that these models can’t simply be transplanted elsewhere:
“You can’t simply import the European model of audiovisual regulation into South Asia or Africa. The context is different — the market size, the capacity of the regulator, the political economy of the media. The EU directives assume strong institutions and steady funding. Without those, the same rules may not yield the same outcomes.”
South Africa has eleven official languages, and any new policy framework should make sure local and indigenous audiovisual content is visible and discoverable on all major digital platforms. The Competition Commission’s provisional report on the Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI) has already demonstrated how algorithms often relegate South African news content, making it harder to find.
If these separate policy processes have one thing in common, it’s the urgency of getting them right and getting them done.
As Prof Parthasarathi observed:
“The biggest lesson from India is that delay comes at a cost. When policy reform stalls, platforms fill the vacuum — and then you end up negotiating from weakness. So for South Africa, the fact that a new draft exists, even with its problems, is already progress. It’s easier to amend a live document than to revive a dead process.”
This perspective drives home why South Africa’s policy reform cannot afford to stumble again. Keeping the momentum alive — even when imperfect — is better than restarting from zero every few years. The outcomes of the audiovisual media policy process and the Competition Commission’s MDPMI will test how serious South Africa is about turning policy momentum into real, meaningful legislative reform and sector revitalisation.
Note to readers: Later this week we will share the CTRL+J Africa conference report as we conclude this landmark, South-to-South tricontinental series in Kuala Lumpur (19–20 November). I will also post my early take on the Competition Commission’s final MDPMI report, soon to be released on 13 November.
