ICA Conference May 22-26, 2008 Montreal
Communicating Communicating for Social Impact Gabriël J. Botma
Honing the tools of journalism research: Herman and Chomsky versus Bourdieu at Naspers Abstract Different approaches to journalism research can often lead to diverging and even conflicting results. In this paper, which enters the debate between critical political economy and cultural studies, findings from an analysis using elements from both theoretical approaches are compared in order to shed light on a current South African journalism research problem: the positioning of Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at the international media conglomerate Naspers more than a decade after the end of apartheid. As a pilot research project this paper analyses Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at two of Naspers’s oldest and most prominent Afrikaans print publications, Die Burger and Huisgenoot, by using Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model (from critical political economy) in conjunction and comparison with concepts from Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory (from cultural studies) as theoretical framework. Research methods include a qualitative content analysis of the abovementioned publications (2004–2005) and corporate publications and literature, as well as unstructured in-depth interviews with managers, editors and journalists. In the first part of the paper, the propaganda model is adapted and applied to the current South African environment. This includes a reworking of the dated fifth filter – anti-communism – to describe the positioning of the Afrikaner-dominated Naspers vis-à-vis the ANC-led South African govern governmen mentt and its “natio “nation-b n-buil uildin ding” g” polici policies. es. Bourdi Bourdieu’ eu’ss field field theory theory is then then introd introduce uced d and discussed in terms of concepts such as (mutually transferable) cultural and symbolic capital, as well as habitus, which is adapted here to describe the historic content, role and function of Afrikaans in the development of Naspers. In conclusion, where findings from both approaches are compared, this paper argues that what looks like true journalistic independence for arts journalists at Naspers might in fact be a rather powerless structural vacuum, devoid of support from both their owners/managers and readers because of the radical shift in the political economic context of the South African media since 1994. Keywords: Afrikaans, arts journalism, critical political economy, cultural studies, Die Burger , field theory, Huisgenoot, journalism research, Naspers, propaganda model
Mr Gabriël J. Botma (
[email protected]) is a lecturer at the Journalism Department of Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Africa. This paper is based in part part on Manufacturing cultural capital: The political economy of arts journalism at Die Burger (2004-2005), delivered at the conference 20 Years of Propaganda?, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada, 17 May 2007, and Paying the field: The cultural economy of Afrikaans at Naspers , delivered at CRESC Annual Conference, 5 September 2007, University of Manchester, England.
1. Introduction
Africa’s and South Africa’s biggest commercial media company, Naspers, started out in 1915 (as Nasionale Pers) with a single newspaper ( Die Burger ) in support of Afrikaner nationalism and its ethnic mobilization policies which was institutionalized as apartheid in 1948. Although Naspers steadily expanded under apartheid, its growth has been phenomenal since non-racial, inclusive democratization in 1994, which enabled the company to turn culture into international corporate business. While the company on the one hand still supports a number of very lucrative publications and projects aimed specifically at Afrikaans audiences, it now displays and professes an international, multilingual and multicultural approach. From the start of Naspers in the early twentieth century, Afrikaans arts and culture journalism played an important role in the development of both the commercial and political interests of the media company. For example, in 1916 the general-interest cultural magazine Huisgenoot was started to support Die Burger financially and to promote Afrikaner nationalism through the coverage of an idealistic Afrikaans/Afrikaner cultural life, including literature, music, theatre, fine arts and history (Muller, 1990). Afrikaans became an official language (besides English) in the 1920s, in part because of the efforts of Die Die Burger, Huisgenoot Burger, Huisgenoot and other Naspers concerns, such as its growing book publishing business (Beukes, 1992). In the same vein Naspers publications supported Afrikaner cultural hegemony and arguably helped the National Party (NP) to take office in 1948 and to e stablish a republic, independent from from the British Commonwealth, Commonwealth, in 1961 (O’ Meara, 1983). According to Froneman (2004) Afrikaner nationalism lost momentum after the ultimate goal of an Afrikaner-dominated republic was reached in 1961. 1961. The trend was visible in Huisgenoot in the form of a gradual shift to include more “light” entertainment and sports, and also Anglo-American pop culture, instead of the previously predominant focus on “serious” Afrikaner/Afrikaans arts and culture. Faltering circulation figures and the introduction of television in South Africa in the 1970s finally motivated Huisgenoot to embrace international pop culture and to present a mixture of sensational celebrity news content and light entertainment to its readers. Subsequently, its circulation grew to unparalleled heights in the South African market. Huisgenoot retained this successful formula up to and after democratization in 1994 (although it then quickly shifted its brand of popular patriotism to the leaders, celebrities and symbols of the inclusive “new” South Africa) and also its leadership position in terms of market share. The magazine now also publishes an English edition. The domacratization of South African society in the 1990s introduced radical changes to the positioning of arts and culture journalism at Die Burger . Following the lead of its holding company, Naspers, Die Burger also embraced the new democracy and tried to distance itself from its apartheid past. In term of arts and cultural journalism this meant, amongst others, more attention to indigenous African arts and culture, although some arts journalists were also critical of the new official political
and cultural hegemony which has replaced apartheid and which seems to marginalize and/or exclude Afrikaans to an extent (Botma, 2006). The question thus arises: What is the current positioning of Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at Naspers? This paper aims to describe the current political, cultural and economic positioning of Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at Naspers in the context of its transformation from apartheid to democracy from the perspectives of critical political economy and cultural studies. In the first instance the propaganda model of Herman and Chomsky (1988) will be utilized, and for the second perspective this paper will turn to the field theory of Bourdieu (1984; 1989). Because Naspers is a huge media conglomerate with a long and complex history, this paper will as a pilot study often focus on a limited (but still challenging) overview of the transformation and role of Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at Die Burger and Huisgenoot. As a general starting point, this paper proposes that the qualitative description of the transformation and current positioning of Afrikaans and arts and culture journalism at these core publications will be indicative of the company’s current positioning in relation to Afrikaans arts and culture journalism in general.
3. Theoretical approach: Two models 3.1 The propaganda model
This paper firstly employs the Herman and Chomsky (1988) propaganda model as basic theoretical framework in its analysis of Afrikaans Afri kaans arts and culture journalism at Naspers. There are sufficient similarities between the context of the model’s design 20 years ago in Americ Americaa and the curren currentt neo-lib neo-libera erall capita capitalis listt South South Africa African n commer commercia ciall landsc landscape ape to warran warrantt application, but also significant enough differences between the two to make it difficult to predict research results. While similarities centre on influences of globalization, including corporatization and commercialization, differences include a fragmented, deeply divided and unequal multicultural and multilingual South African context, in contrast to the comparatively far more homogeneous American society. More problematic is the question of how to include agency when one tries to apply the model on the meso and micro level of analysis, such as Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at two specific Naspers publications. Although the model tends to fa vor the description of processes on a macro level, Boyd-Barrett (2004) showed that it could be adapted to focus on a particular publication and the agency of individual journalists. In this paper the model’s capacity for agency is extended further with the introduction of Mosco’s (1996) concept of structuration. According to Mosco (1996:212) structuration refers to the process whereby structures are formed through human agency, while at the same time becoming the medium of that process. Social life is mutually constituted by agency and structures, according to Mosco (1996). This inclusive approach, which links polit ical economy and media sociology, also finds
that structure and agency are interlocked, a more flexible approach to seemingly structurally determined models, like the propaganda model, becomes possible. The discussion of structuration at Naspers looks at the way in which human agency creates, forms, changes and influences structures, while at the same time being changed by these structures. This includes the creation of fields of support and resistance, and the role played by hegemony – in the specific sense that consensus is created to the extent that opposition is marginalized (Mosco, 1996:216). Partially Partially accepting accepting Boyd-Barr Boyd-Barrett’s ett’s (2004:436) (2004:436) reworking reworking of the fifth filter (the outdated category of “anti-communism”), namely that “the media share the same broad ideological outlook as their government” (more about this later), the discussion discussion will now focus on key concepts from field theory.
3.2 Field theory
Key concepts from the field theory of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1984; 1989) form the theoretical point of departure of the second part of this paper. In an effort to further support the introduction of agency into a structural analysis as discussed above, Bourdieu’s central concept of habitus will be employed. According to Thompson (1991:12) the habitus is a “set of dispositions which incline agents to act and react in certain ways”:
The dispositions generate practices, perceptions and attitudes which are ‘regular’ without being consciously co-ordinated or governed by any ‘rule’.
But when individuals act, they always do so in specific social contexts or settings, according to Thompson (1991). Bourdieu uses the term “field” to refer to these social contexts. According to Thompson (1991:14):
A field … may be seen as a structured space of positions in which the positions and their interrelations are determined by the distribution of different kinds of resources or ‘capital’… there are different forms of capital: not only ‘economic capital’… but also ‘cultural capital’ (i.e. knowledge, skills and other cultural acquisitions, as exemplified by educational or technical qualifications), ‘symbolic capital’ (i.e. accumulated prestige or honor), and so on. One of the most important properties of fields is the way in which they allow one form of capital to be converted into another – in the way, for example, that certain educational qualifications can be cashed in for lucrative jobs.
In Bourdieu’s theory the activities and practices of the news media fall into the general field of
or individuals who dominate a field are generally those who successfully convert one form of capital into another, and in so doing, besides besides economic and cultural capital, “amass both ‘social capital’ of friendship and colleague networks, and ‘symbolic’ capital through which their dominance is legitimated”. Hesmondhalgh (2006: 215) argues that fields of cultural production (such as journalism) are also structured by sets of possible positions within them. He states that struggles over these positions often take the form of a “battle between established producers, institutions and styles, and heretical newcomers” (pp. 215-216). From this perspective, Bourdieu’s theory makes it possible to describe the possible influence of individual agents (such as arts and culture journalists) struggling for various forms of capital, on the structures in which they work (fields), and which also influence their disposition (habitus) in turn. The current positioning of Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at two prominent Naspers publications is at issue. In conjunction with habitus, the concepts of field and capital enable one to describe the historic transition and structural transformation of the two particular publications from the apartheid era to the current democratic dispensation, as well as their current positioning (through media products, projects and discourses) as important players i n the field of cultural c ultural production. This paper suggests that field theory provides a strong tool for journalism research on different levels of analysis. At the same time field theory seems to be compatible to t he adapted propaganda model from the critical political economy approach. However, a strong counterargument must be recognized in future research involving Bourdieu’s field theory in relation to journalism and cultural studies. Although field theory, which was developed in sociology, has gained popularity in cultural studies and is progressively influencing this approach, one could argue that Bourdieu’s theory i s not really “representative” of cultural studies. The same argument will concede that field theory is arguably “closer” to critical political economy to start off with, and probably rather “belongs” more to media sociology. But others, such as Benson & Neveu (2005:12), argue that field theory positions itself “precisely” between political economy and cultural approaches and calls for “the simultaneous analysis of social structures and cultural forms, as well as the complex interplay between the two”. Even if one concedes that a lot more work probably needs to be done to reconcile critical political economy and cultural studies, this paper still aims to illustrate that an eclectic approach using a combination and adaptation of different theories and models may only strengthen the tools of journalism research.
4. Research question and methodology
Flowing from the discussion above, the main research question of this paper is: What is the current positioning of Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at Naspers? In order to answer the main research question a qualitative content analysis of literature
from Naspers publications, will be done by using Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model and Bourdieu’s field theory. The findings will then be compared and discussed. By applying these different theoretical concepts, the researcher will be able to describe the current positioning of Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at especially Die Burger and Huisgenoot in the context of their historic development. The content analysis will include a review of transcribed notes from recordings of unstructured in-depth interviews with managers, editors and journalists of Naspers, conducted in 2005, about the economic, political and cultural positioning of the company before and after 1994. A preliminary database search on the internet, including the NRF-Nexus, Google and Google Scholar search engines, as well as the catalogue of the J.S. Gericke library of S tellenbosch University, indicated that findings for Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model and Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory have not been compared in an analysis of Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at Die Burger and Huisgenoot before. For practical reasons already stated, the qualitative analysis of research material from both the literary and field sources, including corporate material and publication content, will be limited mainly to Die Burger and Huisgenoot . Although a host of Naspers publications (still) appear in Afrikaans, this paper argues that the transformation and current positioning of Die Burger and Huisgenoot can serve as an important indication of the positioning of Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at Naspers. This pilot study will therefore yield reliable results relating to trends in the cultural e conomy of Naspers, which may be included in a future project with greater depth and scope.
5. Application and discussion 5.1 The propaganda model and Naspers
The discussion will start with the broader political economic context of Die Burger and Huisgenoot, with special reference to its holding company Naspers – even if that means moving away for a moment from the more narrowly defined research focus on arts journalism. However, at publications like Die Burger and Huisgenoot the production of arts and culture (and entertainment) journalism is in many respects linked so closely to (and also sometimes directly dictated by) Naspers that the holding company should at least be considered in brief in relation to the model as a whole. Naspers provides a textbook example of a diversified, horizontally and vertically concentrated and integrated media conglomerate with national and international interests and is therefore easily placeable within the parameters of the five filters of the Herman and Chomsky model. Naspers’s main activities are concentrated in pay television and internet platforms, print media, book publishing, and technology markets (Naspers website, 2007). Its primary listing is on the JSE securities exchange in South Africa. The company’s ADB programme, through which it had a secondary listing on Nasdaq in New York, was suspended in 2007 and transferred to a listing on the securities exchange in London. Although Naspers has significant operations located elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa,
operations are located in South Africa, where it generates approximately 72.7% of its revenues. Therefore, the company’s relationship with the South African and regulating authorities are important, by its own admission – the company for example declares government affirmative action policies like Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) as a “risk factor” in a statement to American investors (Naspers yearbook, 2005) and undertakes to establish and maintai n a close relationship with the authorities. The company seemingly also retained retained some alliances with traditional traditional powerful Afrikaner Afrikaner interests. The company’s history until close to the 1990s (when the company was listed for the first time) is so closely knit with Afrikaner nationalism (through its partnership with the National Party) and capitalism capitalism (through its connection with the insurance insurance giant Sanlam) that it is unrealistic unrealistic to think that some of this history will not be reflected somewhere in especially the ownership and control structure of the company. Bekker (2005) possibly understates this aspect, but confirms in any case that the share structure before listing “was roughly” continued thereafter. An unsuccessful effort by the financial services group PSG to acquire a significant amount of the unlisted Class A controlling shares of Naspers between the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006 (Crotty, 2006) has put the company’s complex and controversial control structure somewhat in the media spotlight. PSG’s bid was defeated when Sanlam Investment Managers sold a number of its Class A controlling shares to Koos Bekker, chief executive officer of Naspers, and Cobus Stofberg, chief director of its affiliate MIH, in their personal capacities. Bekker, Stofberg and Sanlam now together holds 13% of the voting rights of Naspers through a new company, Wheatfields 221, which forms part of the control structure of Naspers (Crotty, 2006). Bekker, who has became a rich and powerful media baron through his connection to the company, company, is personally personally one of the driving forces behind the strategy to create the perception perception that Naspers has been thoroughly repositioned as an innovative commercial international media company, altogether altogether away from its ethnic origins origins and the partisan partisan goals of the past. As indicated indicated above, the company has been working hard to distance itself from its apartheid history to ensure economic survival and progress. Through his so-called synergy forum at Naspers, Bekker, for example, directed different affiliates in the production production and promotion promotion of an ambitious project, “So where do we come from?”, in 2004 (Booyens, 2005). This synergy project entailed the publication of a book ( Out of Africa’s Eden) by one of Nasper Naspers’ s’ publish publishers ers,, Jonath Jonathan an Ball, Ball, a docume documenta ntary ry on its pay TV channe channell M-Net, M-Net, a genealogy website hosted by the internet service provider M-Web, and orchestrated promotion on the company’s digital TV channels and programmes, as well as in its magazines such as Huisgenoot and newspapers, including Die Burger. The The back backgr grou ound nd to this this proj projec ectt show showss the the impo import rtan ance ce of ideo ideolo logi gica call proje project ctss in the the repositioning of Naspers and its affiliates. In short: The project centered on the scientific view that Africa is the birthplace of humankind. The book and documentary accordingly both emphasized the
of the new South Africa: If everbody is an African, then everybody can take equal part in the Africanization of the new South Africa (through the African renaissance). To popularize this political point, the (traceable ancient) genetic origins of a number of South African celebrities from diverse backgrounds were “established” as part of the project. The results – some black (or so-called coloured) peo peopl plee “cam “came” e” from from the the East East or Euro Europa pa,, while while some some whit whites es “came “came”” from from Afric Africaa – fitte fitted d the the ideo ideolo logi gica call slan slantt of the the proj projec ect. t. (Pop (Popul ular ar form former er pres presid iden entt Nels Nelson on Mande Mandela’ la’ss gene geness were were – conveniently? – traced back to an African Khoisan ancestry – the “oldest” people on earth.) From Bekker’s and Naspers’ point of view this meant that whites (and also Afrikaners) too could claim an “ancient birthright” on the continent and that they had “evidence” with which they could try and counter any threat of exclusion that a narrow definition of “African” in the concept of the African renaissance – to the detriment of political stability, and ultimately economic progress – would entail in the long run. In addition the project had the potential to make a quick profit in the short term. Naspers also tries to cultivate good relations with the ANC-led government on national and provincial levels. ANC ministers are regularly entertained at Naspers affiliates and at the company headquarters in Cape Town, also with the directors present, while the Western Cape goverment were in the past closely i nvolved in co-sponsorship deals with Naspers of Afrikaans cultural festivals. On behalf of Naspers, Die Burger and Huisgenoot are promiment sponsors and promotors of the biggest of these festivals.
5.1.2 The propaganda model and Die and Die Burger and Burger and Huisgenoot Huisgenoot
Similar to what Huisgenoot experienced in the late 1970s with the introduction of television to South Africa, arts journalism at Die Burger after 1994 was transformed due to declining circulation that posed a threat to advertising rates and income – the bottom line. Just as the “visionary” editor Niel Hamman (Beukes, 1992) commercialized and popularized Huisgenoot decades ago, aggressive steps were taken by Die Burger under the editorship of Arrie Rossouw (2000-2006) to increase circulation. These included special projects to attract readers through the commodification of both journalism and culture. At times members of the arts and culture desk at Die Burger came under pressure to legitimize and promote these sponsored events through editorial coverage, although these strategies were challenged by them (Botma, 2006). 2006). However, as Botma (2006) indicates after a comparison comparison of newspaper content from a database search, even a low-key Afrikaans cultural festival that was started by Naspers MD Koos Bekker for strategic reasons, the Naspers-sponsored Suidooster Festival, received more editorial coverage in Die Burger in 2004–2005 than the biggest arts festival in South Africa, the National Arts Festival in Grahamstown, during the same period.
Huisgenoot had long ago rid itself of any “elitist” pretence and content and only nostalgic members of the older generation would nowadays refer to the magazine’s “serious” contribution contribution to
While it could be argued that the shift from an “upmarket” approach, which could also be called elitist, to a more populist focus at Die Burger and Huisgenoot placed placed arts and cultural journalists in a better position to broaden the scope of Afrikaans cultural expression to inlcude previously excluded (“non-white”) Afrikaans cultural groups, some countertrends emerge at the same time. Through Naspers-sponsored projects Die Burger and Huisgenoot sold their brands – and, could be argued, their credibility – to the highest bidder. In both publications the divide between advertising/promotions staff on the one hand and editorial staff on the other clearly came under serious threat, and was bridged and broken down in some instances. For arts journalists this meant that they were less protected by senior editors and thus more exposed to direct pressure from both the advertising and promotional departments of the publications and their clients. It was not uncommon for a client to be escorted into the editorial section with demands for editorial coverage in addition to and in return for ad-spend or as part of a special partnership of sponsorship deal with management (Schneider, 2005). Although some members of the arts and entertainment staff at Die Burger offered resistance (Pople, 2005), the growing power of advertisers, supported by management, forced arts and culture journalists to compromise some of their traditional values and practices of independence and fairness. Limited success was noted: in one case a books editor’s suggestion to launch a book club for
Die Burger on less promotional grounds was accepted (Brand, 2005). The more common response from management, however, was to sideline arts and culture journalists by assigning the editorial coverage of important sponsored events to the publication’s promotional and marketing department. In this way promotional copy, the unfiltered voice of powerful official sources, found their way into the editorial columns of Die Burger , while the editor could still, with some justification, proclaim that arts and culture journalists (but not journalism!) were not compromised by the paper’s close relationship with official sources (Rossouw, 2005). In general reduced resources as a result of restructuring due to political and economic factors are increasingly forcing arts journalists to stay in the office and rely on official sources to feed them by telephone and the internet. Because the welfare gap in South Africa overlaps to a large degree with the “infor “informat mation ion gap” gap” (due (due to the corres correspon pondin ding g levels levels of connec connectiv tivity ity and access access to media) media),, these these practices of exclusion ensure that arts and culture projects originating from groups with money will be favoured in Die Burger and Huisgenoot. Especially at Die Burger , this trend of commodification was not in the main supported by arts journalists, whose criticism of these sponsored events seem to focus on the lack of substance (intellectually, politically and artistically) of these popular offerings. In effect, ironically, arts journalists at Die Burger were thus forced by structural factors to position themselves as protectors of (the same) elitist art forms (classical music, ballet, theatre, fine arts) which was dominant in society under apartheid. In the process they were not only moving away from the strategic aims of their current owners
possible opposition to the ideology of t he African renaissance and its focus on indigenous African culture. Although it would seem that arts journalism at some Naspers publications in this respect harbours some seeds of opposition to both commercial and political pressure through the agency of some journalists, it could be difficult to sustain or develop without structural support (more about this later).
5.2.1 Field theory and Naspers
In the application of Bourdieu’s field theory to Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at Naspers, the relationship between the agency of Afrikaners as a political and cultural group and the language of Afrikaans will be discussed in the context of the development of the media company. Often “Afrikaans” and “Afrikaners” are erroniously seen as synonymous, not le ast because Afrikaans was appropriated by Afrikaner nationalism and deliberately promoted as such under apartheid. The relationship between “Afrikaners” as a cultural and political group and “Afrikaans” as a language needs to be clarified. Because of the link between apartheid and Afrikaner nationalism, the facts of the multicultural and multiracial origins and development of Afrikaans were obscured to such an extent that it may come as a surprise to some foreign observers that Afrikaans is currently also the home language of roughly 3–4 million so-called coloured South Africans, who are historically often excluded (also by themselves) from the definiti on of (white) “Afrikaners”. Therefore, one of the consequences of apartheid for the Afrikaans-language community was a clear division along racial and economic class lines, which persists to this day (see Jeffreys, 2005; Visser, 2005; Wyngaard, 2004). Contrary to a widespread misconception, Afrikaner culture can therefore only be seen as one variant of Afrikaans culture in general. For example, Afrikaans culture also includes the large community of Cape (Malay) Moslems, who were influential in the development of the language from its 17th-century Dutch origins. In Bourdieu’s terms, Naspers depended on the exploitation and transformation of Afrikaner habitus – a form of symbolic capital in part constituted by the fabrication and glorification of a direct, historic and virtually exclusive link between Afrikaners and Afrikaans – to compete for economic and cultural capital in the field of cultural production in the apartheid era. Because the company was in close proximity to influential Afrikaner interests in the political and economic fields in the larger field of power, it could c ompete successfully in its own, more heterogeneous, field (see Jacobs [2004] and Horwitz [2001] for examples where Naspers profited from its allies in the field of power). Through its own concentration of economic and cultural capital, Naspers in this way also contributed to the process whereby Afrikaans and Afrikaner culture gained more social and symbolic capital, which in turn was transferred into cultural and economic capital in the field of cultural production and other related fields (see Muller, 1990). For Naspers the demise of apartheid therefore presented a huge challenge. But contrary to popular belief, the South African revolution did not occur overnight. The field of power in apartheid
well as the influence of new entrants into the field. Political changes, especially in the middle to late 1980s, meant that Naspers had to explore other political options than their partnership with and reliance on the faltering NP (Bekker, 2005), while economic pressures and opportunities dictated alternatives to Afrikaner culture and Afrikaans as a language medium (Vosloo, 2003). In fact, the official democratization of South Africa since 1994 meant that changes in the fi eld of power were drastically accelerated. Not only did Naspers finally lose its powerful political ally of more than half a century when the NP first capitulated and t hen collapsed, but the company also had to reposition itself in terms of the new political elite, led by the ANC. Most notably, after 1994 Afrikaner culture (and consequently Afrikaans) became less valuable for Naspers in terms of its ability to be transformed into social and symbolic capital. In fact, already during apartheid a countertrend emerged in which Afrikaans was (unfairly?) stigmatized because of its association with Afrikaner habitus. Though not exclusively, Naspers’s cultural roots and profits were still firmly situated in the Afrikaner community after 1994, and too drastic a political repositioning at that stage could have threatened Naspers’s ability to compete for economic and cultural capital in the changing field of cultural production (Wasserman, 2005). But at the same time the changing political and socio-economic landscape since 1994 meant that Naspers had to move away – and also be seen to move away – from any racial and sectarian interests, especially those which could directly link the company to its apartheid history. Naspers’s response was twofold. In 1994–1995 Naspers listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, t hereby officially distancing itself from the remains of the political and economic fields of power established by apartheid. Naspers restructured and became a public company with a diverse ownership and audience base, by selling some shares to emerging black entrepreneurs (thus showing a “clear break with the practices of Afrikaner capital”, according t o Tomaselli (2000:286) and extending its operational focus internationally. But, as was indicated above (see also Botma, 2006:96), Naspers’s complex and shielding ownership and shareholding structure actually enabled the company to maintain its links to traditional Afrikaner companies, such as the insurance gaint Sanlam, and in all probability also to other influential Afrikaner groups and leaders who were part of the structure under apartheid. Secondly Naspers used opportunities created by the democratization and internationalization of South Africa to increase its diversification of cultural production in the media. Naspers was aided by, and thoroughly made use of, the rapid development of technology and the convergence of publishing platforms in the last decade to maintain a dominant position in the field. It could be argued that Naspers’s involvement as sponsor and organiser of Afrikaans festivals originated immediately after the fall of apartheid in an effort to protect their investment (in terms of economic and cultural capital) in Afrikaners. But by emphasizing Afrikaans (and thus trying to neutralize the link to Afrikaner nationalism and its stigmatized symbolic capital), Naspers could appeal to the Afrikaans community as a whole (including “non-white” members). When, in reality,
Topley, 2005), Naspers responded by denouncing segregated festivals and applying strategies t o draw diverse audiences. When that did not change the situation substantially after more than five years – and under direct pressure from a prominent “non-white” member of the Naspers board of directors (Schneider, 2005) – the company started cultural festivals aimed in the main at “non-white” Afrikaans speakers (Schneider, 2005), although they also tried to promote it as “inclusive” in an effort to “break down apartheid barriers” (Bekker, 2005; Rossouw, 2005). Unlike its thriving predominantly “white” Afrikaans counter parts, the most prominent of these cultural projects aimed at “non-white” Afrikaans speakers, the annual Suidooster Festival in Cape Town, struggled to gain momentum and popularity, despite efforts to include marginalized Afrikaans artists and cultural forms (Schneider, 2005). One could argue that the Suidooster Festival lacked (and still lacks) economic and cultural capital, but presented an opportunity for Naspers to compete for social and symbolic capital, which in the new South African democracy is often associated with the development of “previously disadvantaged” groups, like the culture of “non-white” Afrikaans speakers. To be fair, the Suidooster Festival did attract a racially more “inclusive” Afrikaans audience in the last few years, although the gap between Afrikaner audiences and the rest of the language community, both in terms of numbers and available finances (for production and consumption), is still very obvious at all the Afrikaans cultural festivals sponsored by Naspers through the involvement of titles such as Die Burger and Huisgenoot .
Field theory and Die and Die Burger and Burger and Huisgenoot Huisgenoot
In terms of field theory the research shows that the nature of cultural capital at t he newspaper Die
Burger and the magazine Huisgenoot has gradually shifted over time (and arguably quicker since 1994) to include significant elements of both previously excluded local (“non-white”) and international pop culture in the mainstream. However, in their pursuit of economic capital both publications have been forced to maintain strong links with Afrikaner habitus through the promotion and production of publications, festivals and projects (aimed in theory at the broader Afrikaans community, but in reality appealing mainly to Afrikaners). Although it is safe to say that Afrikaner habitus has also changed (to accept voluntary inclusion as a minority group in a multiracial and multilingual democracy), it still remains to be seen whether the racial distinctions of apartheid will remain in the definition definition of “Afrikaner” and “Afrikaner culture”. This could be an important factor in the future of Afrikaans as an official language, due to it s lingering negative associations with Afrikaner nationalism and apartheid, and, since 1994, more prominently also with unfair economic advancement. Democratization in 1994 and the loss of power of Afrikaners as a political group not only reduced Die Burger ’s ’s ability to create symbolic, social and cultural capital, but exposed the newspaper directly to economic pressures (to make a profit). It seems that the nature of cultural capital in the field of the paper is in flux to such an extent that alternatives to and/or c ompanions for Afrikaans as a
medium are seriously considered as options. It remains to be seen what such a move would mean for this newspaper – and (other struggling) Afrikaans publications at Naspers in general.
Huisgenoot has been able to reposition itself culturally and economically even before the demise of apartheid due to its relative political/editorial freedom to popularize its content i n the pursuit of profit (at the cost of artistic merit and intellectual depth). In the process process it has seemingly stayed in touch with the turn towards popular culture in the Afrikaner/Afrikaans community which occurred decades ago. Huisgenoot could also thus extend its focus to include other languages and cultures without any fear of losing its Afrikaans/Afrikaner support base. Although it seems that Huisgenoot now also considers itself a symbolic/social and cultural agent in society at large, as illustrated by efforts to mobilize its readers through “national” projects), it seems unrealistic in terms of its history to predict that its future commitment to Afrikaans will either include a broadening (and intellectual deepening) of its current cultural perspective, or will be sustained if economic survival dictates otherwise. Although journalists at Huisgenoot had seemingly resigned themselves decades ago to the publication publication’s ’s overt sensational sensational and commercial commercial approach, they currently currently still value professional professional journalistic standards on practical levels such as newsgathering, writing, editing, design and page layout, according to Froneman (2004). Since commodification gathered momentum in all earnest in the late 1990s at Die Burger , arts and culture journalists at the paper seemingly still tried to uphold a tradition of critical independence from all authority in their critical analysis (through articles, interviews and reviews). But on the other hand criticism originating from arts and culture journalism in the research period was also often framed framed in the context context of the popular popular movement towards a multicultural multicultural,, inclusive inclusive constitutional constitutional democracy which was accepted as official company and newspaper policy since 1994. Because many readers of Die Burger openly professed (some) opposition to the new South Africa and its predominantly black government (mostly on the opinion and letters pages), the focus of liberal criticism on arts and culture pages in general shifted from the previous government to the remainders of its conservative white Afrikaner constituency (rather than to the new government and its policies). In fact, by attacking conservative opposition to projects like the African renaissance, arts and culture journalists were in effect aligning themselves to government ideology. Having said that, the implementation of aspects of the African renaissance in arts and culture, like the restructuring of former state-subsidized theatre bodies and theatres, and the subsequent closing down of some companies organized around “Eurocentric” art forms such as opera and ballet, also drew fierce anti-government criticism from arts and culture writers at Die Burger . This emphasises the point already made above – that arts journalists at Die Burger in some respects ended up in a position removed from their own readers and in opposition to government policy on arts and culture.
6. Conclusion
In comparing findings from an application of Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model and Bourdieu’s field theory to Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at Naspers, a number of trends clearly emerge. In general the positioning of Afrikaans arts and culture journalism at two of its most prominent publications seems to be on an intersection of different forces in the field of cultural production. A micro-leve micro-levell application application of the adapted propaganda propaganda model indicates indicates that arts journalists journalists at agency, and may even be succceeding succceeding to a degree, to maintain maintain a Die Burger are trying through their agency, tradition of critical independence from political and economic stakeholders and power groups and can thus (still) be seen as a potential site where “empowering” cultural capital (in Bourdieu’ sense) can be manufactured in the commercial mainstream Afrikaans media. At the same time this analysis also suggests that Die Burger and Huisgenoot , as part of Naspers, seem to be positioned positioned rather closely to the powerful ruling elite. The fact that on the whole more evidence points to structural superiority when one tries to balance structural pressure with the oppositional agency of arts journalists, not necessarily indicates that arts journalism at Die Burger is a weak site for the (potential) manufacturing of cultural capital (and by implication then a strong site for manufacturing consent, as Herman and Chomsky predicted). It may be the case that the propaganda model simply does not lend itself sufficiently to the description of staff agency. But, with the introduction of the concept of structuration – which combines structure and agency – as well as Bourdieu’s field theory, this paper has argued a strong case that research results on the micro level do indeed mirror those suggested clearly on a structural macro level: What looks like true journalistic independence for arts journalists at individual Naspers publications, might in fact be a rather powerless structural vacuum, devoid of support from both their owners/managers and readers because of the radical shift in the political economic economic context of the South African media since 1994.
References: Aucamp, H. 2008. Kortverhale: Waar is die sneeu van voorverlede jaar? Die Burger-By, 12 April. P.2. Benson, R. & Neveu, E. 2005. Bourdieu and the journalistic field . Cambridge: Polity. Beukes, W.D (ed.) 1992. Oor grense heen: Op pad na ʼn nasionale pers, 1948-1990 . Cape Town: Nasionale Boekhandel. Botma, G.J. 2006. Sinergie as politiek-ekonomiese strategie in die balansering van idealisme en markgerigtheid by Die Burger , Wes-Kaap (2004–2005). Unpublished M.Phil (Journalism) thesis. Stellenbosch University. Bourdieu, P. 1989. Opstellen over smaak, habitus en het veldbegrip. (Translated by Dick Pels.) Amsterdam: Van Gennep. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. (Translated by Richard Nice). Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. & Nice, R. 1980. The Production of Belief: Contribution to an Economy of Symbolic Goods. Media, Culture and Society 2: 261-293. Boyd-Barrett, O. 2004. Judith Miller, The New York Times, and the Propaganda Model. Journalism
Studies, 5(4):435-449. Croteau, D. & Hoynes, W. 2000. Media/Society: Industries, images, and audiences (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Croteau, D. & Hoynes, W. 2001. The business of media: Corporate media and the public interest. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Crotty, A. 2006. Naspers’s Bekker stymies bid by PSG. Cape Times Business Report , 27 January . P.17. Froneman, J.D. 2004. Dominante motiewe in die transformasie van Huisgenoot , 1916–2003. Ecquid
Novi, 25(1):61–79. Herman, E. S. & Chomsky, N. 1988. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass
media. London: Vintage. Hesmondhalgh, David. 2006. Bourdieu, the media and cultural production. Media, Culture & Society, 28(2): 211–231 . Horwitz, R.B. 2001. Communication and democratic reform in South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobs, S.H. 2004. Public sphere, power and democratic politics: Media and policy debates in postapartheid South Africa. Unpublished PhD-thesis, University of London. Jeffreys, H. 2005. Afrikaanssprekendes moet dringend praat. Die Burger website, 27 September. At www.dieburger.com. Accessed on 25 October 2005.
McChesney, R. W. 2000. The political economy of communication and the future of the field. Media,
Culture & Society, 22(1):109-116. Mosco, V. 1996. The political economy of communication: Rethinking and renewal . London: Sage. Muller, C.F.J. 1990. Sonop in die suide. Cape Town: Nasionale Boekhandel. Naspers website. 2007. At www.Naspers.com www.Naspers.com.. Accessed on 12 February. Naspe Naspers rs yearbo yearbook. ok. 2005. 2005. Handed Handed in at the United United States States Securi Securitie tiess and Exchan Exchange ge Commis Commissio sion, n, Washington DC. 30 September. Muller, C.F.J. 1990. Sonop in die suide. Cape Town: Nasionale Boekhandel. O’Meara, D. (1983). Volkskapitalisme: Class, capital and ideology in the development of Afrikaner nationalism 1934-1948. Johannesburg: Raven Press. Prins, J. 2005. Verlede se greep keer dat KKNK integreer. Krit , 31 March. P. 2. Tomaselli, K.G. 2000. South African Media, 1994-7: Globalizing via political economy. In: Curran, J. & Park, M. (eds.) De-Westernizing media studies . London: Routledge. Pp. 279-292. Thompson, J.B. 1991. Editor’s Introduction. In P. Bourdieu. Language and symbolic power . (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Pp. 1-31. Topley, J. 2005. Fees nog steeds selektief? Krit , 30 March. P. 9. Visser, W. 2005. Die dilemma van ʼn gedeelde Afrikaanse identiteit. Kan wit en bruin mekaar vind? Vosloo, T. 2003. Interview with: Ton Vosloo, Chairman Naspers. United World-website, 31 July. At http://www.unitedworld-usa.com/reports/southafrica/interview.asp.. Accessed on 29 April 2005. http://www.unitedworld-usa.com/reports/southafrica/interview.asp Wasserman, H. 2005. Ready to adapt. The Media, June 2005. Pp. 21–23. Wyngaard, H. 2004. Nierassigheid in Afrikaans. Speeach delivered as part of t he Jakes Gerwel-series, -Suidooster Festival, Bellville. October . Die Burger -Suidooster
b) Personal interviews (Recordings and transcriptions available from author, except Booyens, 2005)
Bekker, K. 2005. Chief executive officer of Naspers. 4 August, Cape Town. Booyens, H. 2005. Senior reporter of Huisgenoot. Huisgenoot. Various inquieries, May. Brand G. 2005. Books editor of Die Burger . 11 August, Cape Town. Pople, L. 2005. Acting arts editor of Die Die Burger . 11 August, Cape Town. Rossouw, A. 2005. Editor of Die Burger . 11 August, Cape Town. Schneider, I. 2005. Afrikaans synergy coordinator of Naspers and senior editor of Die Burger . 11 August, Cape Town.
