SABC vs M&G: will the truth ever come out?

Unless charges are withdrawn, we will at last get to understand what qualifies as public interest and being a "public" broadcaster, whether that footage legally belongs to the SABC or not.

Just plain theft

On the face of it, when the SABC commissions a documentary or programme, it makes no difference at all whether the footage is produced internally or not. Contractually, the SABC owns the programmes. A brief look at a standard SABC contract for outside producers will show quite plainly that there are no ifs and buts on the question of ownership.

Unless of course, the producers and the SABC had agreed in advance as to whom the programme would belong. But, since SABC has laid a charge of theft against the M&G, I would guess that there is no question that the SABC contractually owns everything, from the raw footage to the final product.

Which, by very simple deduction, means that unless the M&G can prove conclusively that someone in authority at SABC had given it the footage and the SABC's blessing to use it, the M&G is quite simply guilty of theft.

The big question is whether the M&G can prove extenuating circumstances by arguing that having promised its viewers the programme on two separate occasions and then pulled it at the last minute, the SABC was somehow giving up its rights to the programme and that the public had a constitutional right to know what it contained.

Freedom of expression

It's going to be fascinating to see the court's interpretation of public right to know. If indeed a court would even debate that issue in a theft case. Particularly in this case where the programme was not looking into government graft or corporate corruption, but which was simply intended to debate the role of political satire in the media.

Is a debate on the pros and cons of satire all that important to the general public? Of course, freedom of expression proponents along with private sector media industry will argue that the issue was not about satire but rather freedom of speech.

There are a number of worrying issues here. The first is that if a newspaper can successfully argue that there are extenuating circumstances to stealing something from another media owner, then where will the line be drawn in future? If the M&G wins this court battle by proving that its actions were justified, can that not open the floodgates and allow anyone to simply helping themselves to footage that television networks for some reason or other have decided not to put on air?

The SABC has undoubtedly been a little silly in terms of promoting this programme and then pulling it off at the last minute. And one has to ask whether it were bowing to some sort of outside pressure. And whether the SABC was acting in the public interest by promoting the programnme and then not showing it.

Vigilantes

But, one also has to ask whether the M&G had the right to simply take footage that it clearly did not own and put it up on its website? Did it simply take the law into its own hands? Is the M&G a public protector or simply a media vigilante?

I really do hope that neither side will back down, because this could be a ground-breaking case history where public interest is tested against what appears to be a very straightforward case of theft.

For more:

• Google News: search results concerning SABC, the M&G and Zapiro