By Saul Molobi
South Africa’s media landscape, like its global counterparts, has changed considerably since the advent of democracy. The country has moved from an era in which the apartheid government clamped down on progressive media in its attempts to control the flow of information to a constitutional order that fiercely protects freedom of expression and the independence of the press. Yet the mainstream media now faces a different set of challenges, many of which have less to do with formal censorship and more to do with the economics of media production, changing patterns of news consumption and the growing influence of digital platforms.
These challenges are serious and will not disappear simply because media companies would prefer a more stable operating environment. That is precisely why we need to understand the changing media landscape and what it means for the future of independent journalism.
For those of us who value the role of media in a democratic society, press freedom is about more than the right to publish without state interference. It is also about the ability of media practitioners to investigate matters of public interest, the financial sustainability of media outlets, and the opportunity for diverse voices to participate meaningfully in a national dialogue.
Black Wednesday and the history of press freedom
South Africa commemorates National Press Freedom Day on 19 October in remembrance of Black Wednesday in 1977. On that day, the apartheid government banned The World and Weekend World, publications that had become important vehicles for coverage of Black South Africans. The regime went further to detain journalists, including The World editor Percy Qoboza, as part of a wider campaign to suppress anti-apartheid voices.
The significance of Black Wednesday lies in what it tells us about the relationship between political power and the control of information flow. The apartheid regime understood that the media could challenge its authority by exposing injustice, archiving resistance and giving expression to people whose voices were systematically muted.
Yet the history of South African journalism is also a history of resistance. Journalists, editors, writers and publishers continued to document the realities of apartheid despite censorship, intimidation, detention and the threat of closure. Alternative publications and underground information networks helped ensure that the experiences of the oppressed were not entirely erased from the public record. I became part of those when I joined Learn & Teach Publications in 1988, fresh from a 13-month detention under the State of Emergency. I rose the ranks to become the Editor-in-Chief of its flagship, Learn & Teach magazine.
Black Wednesday therefore remains an important reminder that press freedom is not an abstract principle enshrined in our constitution’s bill of rights. It is a product of struggle for freedom and it depends on the willingness of individuals and institutions to defend the public’s right to know.
The circumstances confronting journalists today are different from those of 1977. Nevertheless, the underlying principle remains relevant: a society cannot make informed decisions if access to credible information is restricted, manipulated or denied.
The development of alternative media
Alternative media emerged as an important feature of South Africa’s political and social landscape long before the arrival of the internet. Under apartheid, alternative newspapers, community publications, activist newsletters and other independent communication networks created spaces for voices that were poorly represented in established media institutions.
These platforms were not simply smaller versions of mainstream newspapers. They often served a different purpose. They documented community experiences, challenged dominant narratives and created opportunities for people to participate in discussions about their own circumstances.
The transition to democracy opened further opportunities for media diversity. Community radio, in particular, expanded access to broadcasting and enabled communities to discuss issues in their own languages and within their own social contexts. The growth of digital publishing subsequently created opportunities for independent journalists, researchers, cultural practitioners and commentators to reach audiences without the substantial financial resources traditionally required to establish a newspaper or broadcasting operation.
This development is important because no society can adequately represent itself through a limited number of institutional voices. Communities have different experiences, priorities and ways of understanding the world. A diverse media landscape creates space for these differences to be expressed and debated.
However, the ability to publish does not automatically establish credibility. The internet has made it easier to distribute information, but it has also made it easier to circulate falsehoods, unverified claims and deliberate disinformation.
We must therefore distinguish between the democratisation of publishing and the development of credible journalism. They are related, but they are not the same thing.
The challenge is to ensure that alternative media contribute to a more informed society rather than merely adding to the volume of information competing for public attention.
The Constitution and the promise of media freedom
South Africa’s democratic Constitution established a framework intended to protect freedoms that had been denied to generations of citizens under apartheid.
It guarantees freedom of expression, including freedom of the press and other media, as well as the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas. It also protects the right of access to information held by the state and, under specified conditions, information held by other persons.
These provisions recognise that democracy requires more than the right to vote. Citizens must have access to information that enables them to understand public affairs, assess the conduct of those who exercise power and participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their lives.
The constitutional promise also has implications for media diversity. A free press should not be understood exclusively in terms of the freedom enjoyed by established media institutions. It must also include opportunities for independent publications, community broadcasters and emerging digital platforms to contribute to public debate.
South Africa’s social, cultural, linguistic and economic diversity makes this particularly important. The experiences of people living in rural communities, townships and smaller towns cannot always be adequately captured by newsrooms concentrated in major metropolitan centres. Nor can the country’s intellectual and cultural life be represented by a narrow range of voices.
This does not mean that every perspective is equally accurate or that every claim deserves equal weight. It means that the public should have access to a diversity of credible perspectives, supported by evidence and open to scrutiny.
The Constitution protects the freedom to express ideas, but responsible journalism requires more than constitutional protection. It requires accuracy, fairness, ethical conduct and a willingness to correct mistakes. Editorial independence must be accompanied by accountability.
The task before us is to give practical meaning to the constitutional promise by creating an environment in which independent journalism can survive, diverse voices can emerge and the public can make informed decisions.
The economic pressures confronting mainstream media
It is not only in South Africa that mainstream media institutions are experiencing a period of significant economic disruption, but it’s a global crisis. They are having to reconsider business models that sustained journalism for decades.
Traditionally, advertising revenue, newspaper sales and subscriptions helped finance the production of news. This revenue supported editorial teams, investigative reporting, regional bureaux and the networks of journalists required to gather and verify information.
That model has come under pressure as audiences have migrated to digital platforms and advertisers have followed them. Businesses can now reach consumers through search engines, social media, influencers and highly targeted digital advertising systems. They no longer depend only on mainstream media to the same extent that they once did.
The implications extend beyond the financial performance of media companies. When advertising revenue declines, companies are compelled to reduce costs. Newsrooms become smaller, specialist reporting is reduced and publications struggle to maintain the resources required for sustained investigative journalism.
The closure of a newsroom is not simply the disappearance of a business. It can also mean the loss of journalists who investigate public expenditure, attend court proceedings, scrutinise government decisions and report on developments in communities that receive limited attention elsewhere.
Journalism requires investment. Reliable reporting depends on research, access to sources, verification, editorial oversight and the time needed to establish what actually happened. The fact that digital technology allows a story to be distributed instantly does not make the process of producing credible journalism any less demanding.
This is where the challenge becomes particularly serious. Society continues to depend on reliable information, even as the business models that traditionally financed its production become less sustainable.
We must therefore confront an important question: how do we preserve the capacity to produce credible journalism when the commercial value of the content is increasingly captured by platforms that did not necessarily undertake the original reporting?
The answer will require new thinking about media economics, advertising, subscriptions, partnerships and the public value of journalism.
Social media and changing patterns of news consumption
The rise of social media has changed how people encounter, interpret and share news. Many audiences now receive information through WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and other platforms rather than by visiting a newspaper website or tuning in to a scheduled news bulletin.
This shift has created opportunities for independent journalists and commentators to build direct relationships with audiences. It has also enabled stories that might otherwise have received little attention to reach large numbers of people.
There is, however, a distinction between making information available and ensuring that it is reliable.
Social media platforms bring together professional reporting, personal opinion, entertainment, advertising and unverified claims. A carefully researched investigation may compete for attention with a sensational allegation that has not been independently verified. In an environment where engagement is commercially valuable, information that provokes an emotional response can gain visibility before its accuracy has been established.
The result is a more complicated information environment in which audiences must constantly assess the credibility of what they encounter.
The challenge is not to dismiss social media or assume that established media organisations are always correct. Mainstream journalism has its own shortcomings, including mistakes, inadequate representation and instances in which commercial or political interests influence coverage. Institutional reputation alone cannot guarantee accuracy.
Equally, a large digital following does not establish journalistic credibility. Popularity and reliability are different measures.
What matters is whether information is supported by evidence, whether sources are properly assessed, whether facts are distinguished from opinion and whether those publishing the information are prepared to correct errors.
Mainstream media organisations must adapt to changing consumption habits. Mobile-first publishing, podcasts, video, newsletters and direct engagement with audiences are increasingly important ways of distributing journalism. But adaptation should not come at the expense of depth, context and verification.
The objective must be to meet audiences where they are without abandoning the standards that make journalism valuable in the first place.
The need to develop credible independent voices
The changing media landscape makes the development of credible independent voices increasingly important.
No single newspaper, broadcaster or media group can adequately represent the full range of experiences and expertise in a complex society. Independent journalists, researchers, academics, cultural practitioners and specialists can contribute perspectives that complement mainstream reporting and deepen public understanding.
There is also an opportunity to give greater expression to African intellectual traditions, indigenous languages, local knowledge and cultural experiences that are often inadequately represented in wider public discourse.
For South Africa, this is not merely a question of increasing the number of publications or digital platforms. It is about developing the capacity to tell our own stories, examine our own challenges and interpret events from perspectives grounded in our experiences, while remaining open to evidence and constructive criticism.
Independent voices can play an important role in explaining complex policy questions, interrogating public institutions and bringing attention to issues that may not receive sustained coverage in established newsrooms. They can also help audiences understand the connections between local developments and wider national, continental and international affairs.
But independence must be understood carefully. It does not simply mean operating outside a mainstream media organisation. An independent voice must demonstrate intellectual honesty, disclose relevant interests, respect evidence and remain accountable for what it publishes.
The development of credible independent journalism will require investment in research, professional training, digital production, media literacy and ethical standards. Universities, professional associations, civil society organisations, businesses and foundations all have a role to play.
It will also require more sustainable ways of financing independent media. Subscriptions, memberships, reader contributions, philanthropy, events, content licensing and carefully managed sponsorships can help diversify revenue. Different platforms will require different models, and financial support must never become a mechanism for controlling editorial content.
The purpose should not be to establish voices that simply reinforce the positions of those who fund them. It should be to create conditions in which independent voices can question, investigate, analyse and challenge without compromising their integrity.
A healthy media environment needs both established institutions with the resources to undertake substantial reporting and smaller independent platforms capable of bringing fresh perspectives into public debate.
Defending the future of journalism
National Press Day should be an occasion to reflect on how far South Africa has travelled since Black Wednesday, but also on the work that remains to be done.
The threats facing journalism today are not identical to those of the apartheid era. They include declining advertising revenue, shrinking newsrooms, changing consumption habits, dependence on digital platforms, online harassment, disinformation and declining public trust.
These pressures require different responses, but they should not distract us from the central purpose of a free press.
Mainstream media organisations must find ways to remain financially sustainable while preserving their editorial independence. Alternative media must demonstrate that they can offer credible reporting rather than simply provide platforms for unverified claims. Businesses and advertisers must recognise that the health of the media ecosystem has implications for the quality of public debate and democratic accountability.
Public institutions, for their part, must respect the independence of the press, provide access to information in accordance with the law and accept scrutiny as a necessary feature of democratic governance.
Citizens also have a responsibility to assess the information they consume, question claims that lack evidence and support credible journalism where they can.
None of these responsibilities can be discharged by technology alone. Nor can constitutional guarantees, important as they are, sustain journalism without the institutions, resources and professional commitments required to make them meaningful.
South Africa’s history reminds us that the freedom to communicate is inseparable from the freedom to participate in society. The right to publish matters, but so does the right to receive information. The independence of established media matters, but so does the opportunity for new and diverse voices to emerge.
As we commemorate National Press Day on 19 October, we should honour the journalists who resisted apartheid censorship by ensuring that the next generation inherits a media environment that is free, diverse, credible and sustainable.
The challenge is not to return to a media landscape that no longer exists. It is to build one that responds to contemporary realities without abandoning the democratic principles that made press freedom worth fighting for.
A free press is not sustained by freedom alone. It also requires credible journalism, independent voices, an informed public and an economic environment in which the production of reliable information remains possible.
******
The original version of this article first appeared in The National on Sunday, 19 October 2026. Click here to access it.