Mapping information risks and mitigations for election integrity in 2026
Threats to journalists, especially women journalists, are a top Information risk in the upcoming local government elections, alongside the threat of an expected flurry of deepfakes.
These insights emerged from a brainstorm of 20 people at a meeting convened by SANEF and MOXII Africa (formerly Media Monitoring Africa) on 9 February, held at the SANEF offices in Johannesburg. The document can be accessed here.
The likelihood and severity of unfounded attacks on the IEC were also ranked as high risk by the participants, as was also the prospect of online and offline attacks and intimidation of officials exposing municipal corruption.
The workshop involved representatives from the IEC, media houses, one of the big tech companies, researchers and civil society support groups.
A similar human rights risk assessment was done ahead of the 2024 national government elections, providing the model in 2026 and feeding into the coalition activities of the UNESCO-supported Social Media For Peace SA (SM4P) programme, of which SANEF and MOXII are members.
The workshop pooled people’s insights into mapping what risks to information integrity could be expected in 2026 to pose a serious threat to election integrity. The group also proposed mitigations by both media and big tech. They identified three categories of threats:
Risks to expression – intimidation of the public and the media
Disinformation regarding voters’ access to information
Threats to the electoral process, such as attacks on the credibility of the IEC.
According to participants, amongst the ways that media people can help counter the risks are:
Building journalistic credibility by showing the public “how the news sausage is made”
Organising solidarity and specialised training for journalists, and reinforcing codes of conduct
Setting up a rapid response capacity to alert the public about deepfakes, such as impersonations of IEC officials
Working with researchers and civil society
Steps that tech platforms can take were also proposed. These are to:
Re-publicise and enforce their terms of service to remind users that incitement is forbidden conduct on these services
Detect election-related content that threatens information integrity, and moderate it accordingly
Support fact-checking
Be transparent about plans relating to election integrity and give researchers access to data.
Earlier this year, in Beyond Compensation: Reshaping the Digital News Economy, I argued that the Competition Commission’s provisional report on the Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI) was significant not only for its headline figures, but because it sought to “fix the competition problem rather than simply compensate for the negative outcome”. It moved beyond a narrow pay-for-harm model and attempted to reshape the underlying digital market dynamics.
In a subsequent paper, Framing the Fight for Fairer Digital Markets, I assessed how a journalism-led civil society alliance convened by the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) helped shape the Inquiry’s framing, scope and provisional findings. That analysis covered the alliance’s influence on rights-based framing, algorithmic opacity, structural remedies, AdTech, public broadcasting and generative AI.
This article picks up where those pieces left off. With the final MDPMI report now published, I offer a preliminary assessment of what has changed, what has been secured and where ambitions have been scaled back.
When the Commission launched the MDPMI in April 2023 it became one of the most active Global South bodies grappling seriously with platform power, media sustainability and the democratic value of independent journalism. In 2025 the provisional report hinted at an Inquiry willing to push beyond narrow competition doctrine. The final MDPMI report confirms that ambition but also the limits of a regulator confronting technology design and structural asymmetries that run far beyond national borders.
On 13 November 2025, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition Parks Tau received the report and committed to tabling it in Parliament within ten days before taking it to the Government of National Unity Cabinet.
At its best, the final report goes further than expected. It delivers a negotiated, enforceable funding package between the Commission and Google, establishes enforceable remedies for Meta, TikTok, Microsoft, X and OpenAI, creates new commitments on YouTube, includes remedies on the SABC and places a clear rights-based democratic framing at the centre of its analysis. Yet it also shows the limits of a negotiated remedy-based approach. The Commission can extract concessions, but a structural redesign of the market was always unlikely by a Global South country within the confines of this inquiry.
The negotiated settlement model also carries a major practical advantage: most of the remedies take effect immediately. Had the Commission pursued a purely adversarial or structural route, South Africa would likely have faced years of litigation, during which no support would flow to newsrooms, community media or the SABC at time of market failure and financial crisis. In this context, the settlement is pragmatic. It secures funding, transparency commitments, AI controls and enforceable obligations now, rather than deferring relief until after protracted court battles that the Commission, and the media sector, can ill afford to wait out.
A more direct — and overdue — account of platform-induced harm
The Commission’s final report places platform conduct in very direct terms, finding that the concentration of market power in search, social media and digital advertising is central to the weakening of news publishers, especially amid collapsing referral traffic and the rise of AI systems that summarise news without compensation. This is the strongest regulatory recognition to date that platforms extract value from news content while returning a diminishing share, and that these dynamics directly undermine the economic foundations of journalism.
The negotiated Google settlement: structured and verifiable
A key feature of the final report is the structured agreement between the Commission and Google, requiring aggregated R688 million ($40m) funding over five years, including:
R38 million per year for three years for a Digital News Transformation Fund (DNTF) for small and community media (already committed last year and therefore not new funding), followed by matching funding of R19 million per year for two years.
R71 million per year for five years for Google News Showcase for national publishers and broadcasters, including the SABC.
R45 million per year for three years for an AI Innovation Fund for mainstream media.
R11.6 million over three years in total training support for the full industry, including a provision on vernacular training in partnership with the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA).
This package provides predictable multi-year support and is enforceable as a stipulated remedial action.
Plurality of funds, not a single media industry fund
One of the most notable shifts between the provisional and final reports is the disappearance of the idea of a single, centralised Media Industry Fund. The final report instead reflects a move toward a plurality of parallel funds, each addressing a different part of the ecosystem. These include the currently Google-funded DNTF, which was developed using governance principles informed by international models, including guidance from International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM); Google’s own multi-year funding streams for national, community and mainstream publishers; SANEF’s proposed Journalism Fund SA, intended to support public-interest journalism through a multi-stakeholder governance model, and the statutory Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA).
South Africa will therefore have multiple, purpose-specific media and journalism funds rather than a unified national mechanism.
Negotiated outcomes with Meta, TikTok and Microsoft — and the conspicuous absence of X
The non-Google remedies include new monetisation tools, expanded eligibility for publisher programmes, analytics support and visibility improvements across Meta, TikTok and Microsoft. X did not participate in the negotiated process and has twenty days to appeal the imposition of remedial action.
Self-regulation strengthened on paper — but vulnerable in practice
One of the most significant institutional outcomes of the MDPMI is the centrality of self-regulation in determining who qualifies as a legitimate South African news publisher. Across the remedies, eligibility for several of the largest benefits — including Google News Showcase, monetisation tools, training programmes and certain AI-related protections — is explicitly tied to membership of the Press Council or the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA).
This is a major win for the SANEF-led alliance, which consistently argued that ethical journalism, credibility and public accountability must sit at the heart of any remedy involving platform money or AI governance.
But the Commission stops short of directing any platform funding to support the Press Council or BCCSA themselves. If they weaken or collapse, the entire remedy architecture becomes unstable. The Inquiry therefore strengthens the role of self-regulation but leaves its sustainability unresolved.
SABC: improved platform position and archive digitisation
The SABC’s inclusion in the final remedies was another significant gain for the civil society alliance, as the public broadcaster had been excluded from the original terms of reference. The final report contains meaningful remedies for the SABC. Beyond its inclusion in the R71-million-per-year Google News Showcase programme, YouTube must provide Partner Sales support, skills development and onboarding within six months for a three-year period, enabling the SABC to sell advertising directly on its YouTube channels and strengthen its monetisation capacity.
The report also includes support for digitising the SABC archives, a national asset whose cultural and economic value has never been fully realised. But there is no real detail here. This process will require careful oversight to ensure intellectual property remains with the SABC and that public ownership is not compromised.
Taken together, these remedies materially improve the SABC’s position within dominant platform ecosystems while reinforcing its democratic role in making public-interest content accessible. Broader policy questions about long-term funding correctly remain with the Ministry of Communications and Digital Technologies and Parliament.
Collective bargaining: a real win with structural limits
The Commission recommends that the Minister grant a block exemption to allow media houses to negotiate collectively. This recognises bargaining asymmetry and brings South Africa closer to models in Australia and Indonesia. It creates legal cover for collective negotiation but does not alter the underlying power imbalance with global platforms.
Enforcement: stronger than expected
The final report establishes a clear enforcement architecture. Platforms subject to remedies must submit annual compliance affidavits attesting to full implementation and provide regular reporting on rollout progress, publisher onboarding, training delivery, monetisation tools and AI content-control features. Any attempt to vary or discontinue a remedy requires twenty days’ written notice. Persistent noncompliance may be escalated to the Competition Tribunal, which can issue enforceable orders and penalties.
AdTech and transparency: EU-aligned and potential US anti-trust obligations will apply in South Africa
Google has agreed to implement EU-equivalent transparency and anti-self-preferencing commitments in South Africa. The Commission held that:
“If there is any structural remedy implemented by Google ordered in the EU Ad Tech Investigation and the US Ad Tech Case, Google will extend this to South Africa within six months of the date such a remedy is implemented in the EEA or the USA”.
These obligations now form part of the enforceable MDPMI remedy suite.
AI: enforceable content controls — but no licensing framework
AI companies must now provide South African publishers with the same content-control and opt-out mechanisms available in the EU, including training on the ability to block content from model training, updates and AI-generated summaries. These obligations are backed by compliance affidavits and potential Tribunal escalation.
But the Inquiry does not establish a licensing or compensation framework for training data. That structural question is left to future legislative processes.
The missing remedy: deprioritisation of news links
One notable omission from the final report is the provisional finding that Meta and X should cease deprioritising posts containing links to news articles. The harm is acknowledged, but no remedy is imposed. Ordering platforms to modify ranking systems would perhaps have been globally unprecedented, requiring ongoing supervision the Commission does not possess and exposing the Commission to likely litigation risk. Its removal highlights the limits of intervening directly in algorithmic design and underscores the need for a broader regulatory framework spanning competition, data, safety and platform governance.
Content moderation and platform accountability
The report recommends that the Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies consider establishing a co-regulatory framework for social media platforms, using a similar model of accountability upheld by the Press Council and the BCCSA. This aligns with that Ministry’s ongoing legislative review of audiovisual services and online safety and recognises that certain platform-related harms extend beyond competition law.
Fiscal incentives and print media-revitalisation process
The Commission also notes a parallel process led by the Government Communications and Information Service (GCIS) on the revitalisation of the print media sector, including potential fiscal measures such as tax incentives for supporting journalism. While the Commission does not make recommendations on these draft incentives, it signals that fiscal measures would complement the objectives of the MDPMI and form part of a wider ecosystem of sustainability interventions.
Geopolitical constraints and the disappearance of the digital levy
The provisional report suggested a 5–10% digital levy on search, social media and AI companies if no agreement was reached. The final report makes no reference to this option. Trump-era executive orders warning of retaliatory action against countries imposing digital taxes — combined with onerous SA Treasury and legislative requirements — created a political environment in which implementing a mandatory levy became significantly less viable.
Progress made — and unfinished business
South Africa now has:
additional funding streams for publisher groups, including the public broadcaster
• meaningful, enforceable remedies across major platforms
• a rights-based democratic framing from a competition authority
• enforceable AI content-control commitments
• a possible path to collective bargaining
• policy guidance on social media co-regulation
But it still lacks:
secure funding for the Press Council and BCCSA
• a unified long-term mechanism for media sustainability
• structural reform of the digital advertising market
• a licensing and compensation framework for AI
• remedies addressing opaque and harmful algorithmic choices, including the deprioritisation of news links.
Where this leaves us
The final report is a pragmatic settlement with clear unfinished business. But the Inquiry also deserves real credit. Few regulators in the world have produced a market inquiry report this thorough, technically strong and willing to take on platform power with enforceable obligations. Led by Chair James Hodge with industry expert Paula Fray, the MDPMI team has delivered a well-argued and well-researched report that meaningfully shifts the policy terrain. It does not fix structural problems but it establishes a foundation on which the next phase of South Africa’s digital media regulation can be built
The MDPMI has opened the door. What comes through it will depend on Parliament, Cabinet, regulators and the South African media sector itself.
Disclosure
The Media Leadership Think Tank (MLTT) participated in the SANEF-led civil society alliance that made written and oral submissions to the MDPMI. I am also a member of the SANEF Access to Information and Media Policy subcommittee. This preliminary analysis is written in my capacity as Director of the MLTT.
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) convened its November Council meeting in Johannesburg yesterday, with a central focus on assessing the Competition Commission’s final report arising from the Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI). The Council notes that the Inquiry marks a landmark moment in South Africa’s attempt to address global digital market failures that have profoundly affected the sustainability of journalism.
The Council welcome the Commission’s recognition that the challenge before it was not merely to compensate for harms already suffered, but to “fix the competition problem rather than simply compensate for the negative outcome.” By moving beyond the narrow pay-for-harm model, the Commission attempted to reshape underlying digital market dynamics in a way that foregrounds democratic participation, media plurality, and rights-based governance.
SANEF is encouraged that the final report delivers several important gains. These include a negotiated and enforceable funding package between the Commission and Google; binding commitments and remedies applicable to Meta, TikTok, Microsoft, X and OpenAI; newly established obligations on YouTube; and interventions that incorporate the SABC’s critical public mandate. Importantly, the report situates these remedies within an explicit democratic framing, recognising journalism as a public good essential to accountability, transparency, and the health of South Africa’s constitutional order. The report also illustrates the limits of a negotiated remedy-based approach. While the Commission has been able to extract concessions, SANEF notes that a structural redesign of the digital market would be difficult within the constraints of an inquiry operating in an environment dominated by multinational technology companies.
Council emphasised that the negotiated settlement model offers a significant practical advantage: the remedies can take effect immediately. Had the Commission opted for a purely adversarial or structural route, the country would have faced years of litigation, during which no meaningful support would flow to newsrooms, community media, or the SABC despite the sector facing severe financial pressure and widespread market failure. In this context, SANEF believes that the settlement is a pragmatic approach that secures funding, transparency obligations, AI-related protections and enforceable commitments now, rather than deferring relief until after long and costly court battles that the sector cannot afford.
SANEF notes the report’s strongest regulatory recognition to date that platform concentration in search, social media, and digital advertising is a key driver of the weakening of news publishers, exacerbated by collapsing referral traffic and the rise of AI systems that summarise news without compensation. The report affirms what the media sector has long warned that tech platforms extract enormous value from news content while returning a diminishing share, undermining the economic foundations of journalism.
The Council also acknowledged the report’s shift toward a plurality of parallel funding mechanisms rather than one unified national fund. These include the Google-funded Digital News Transformation Fund (DNTF), Google’s own multi-year funding streams for national, community and mainstream publishers, SANEF’s proposed Journalism Fund SA, which is designed to support public-interest journalism through multi-stakeholder governance as well as the statutory Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA). South Africa will therefore have multiple purpose-specific funding instruments working in a complementary landscape.
SANEF strongly supports the Commission’s emphasis on membership of the Press Council or the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) as a requirement for media houses seeking to benefit from key remedies, including Google News Showcase, monetisation tools, training programmes, and certain AI-related protections. This alignment affirms SANEF’s longstanding position that ethical journalism, credibility, and public accountability must sit at the heart of any remedy involving platform funding or AI governance. We urge Parliament to take careful note of this principle as it considers implementing the report’s recommendations.
At the same time, SANEF remains concerned that the Commission has not provided direct support to strengthen the Press Council and BCCSA. These self-regulatory bodies are foundational to the integrity of the remedies, yet their sustainability remains uncertain. If these institutions weaken, the entire architecture of the Inquiry’s outcomes may come under strain.
SANEF further supports the recommendation that the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition grant a block exemption enabling media houses to negotiate collectively. This measure acknowledges bargaining asymmetries and aligns South Africa with international models in Australia and Indonesia. While it does not correct global power imbalances, it gives local publishers essential legal cover to negotiate with dominant platforms.
Overall, SANEF believes the Commission has produced a well-argued, well-researched report that significantly shifts the policy terrain. While not resolving all structural issues, it establishes a solid foundation for the next phase of South Africa’s digital media regulation.
Journalism Qualifications
The Council meeting also deliberated the urgent need to lead a national campaign to modernise South Africa’s media and journalism qualifications, which remain largely anchored in an outdated analogue framework. Many current programmes were designed before the transformative shifts brought about by digital media, including the rise of social platforms, smartphones, streaming technologies and artificial intelligence. As a result, they place disproportionate emphasis on obsolete technical skills such as traditional broadcast engineering and linear production systems, while neglecting critical competencies required in contemporary newsrooms, such as data journalism, social video production, audience analytics, multimedia storytelling, and digital safety. This systemic misalignment is producing underprepared graduates, increasing reskilling burdens for media organisations, and ultimately weakening the talent pipeline and the overall standard of journalism in South Africa.
Finally, Council received an update on the Digital News Transformation Fund (DNTF), established to empower independent publishers through digital innovation. The Fund supports publishers with little or no online presence, assists those building basic digital products to expand their reach and capabilities, and enables digitally mature publishers to invest in modern technologies to strengthen their business models. SANEF welcomes the DNTF as a key vehicle in advancing sustainability, diversification, and innovation across the news ecosystem.
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) is a non-profit organisation whose members are editors, senior journalists, and journalism trainers from all areas of South African media. We are committed to championing South Africa’s hard-won freedom of expression and promoting quality, ethics, and diversity in the South African media. We promote excellence in journalism by fighting for media freedom, writing policy submissions, research, and education and training programmes. SANEF is not a union.
Competition Commission Commissioner Doris Tshepe hands over the report to Minister Parks Tau
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) congratulates the Competition Commission of South Africa for releasing the final report of the Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI) today. This marks a critical milestone in addressing the structural and digital challenges facing the country’s media landscape.
SANEF commends the tenacity, hard work, and resolve demonstrated by the Commission, the Inquiry Panel, and the technical team throughout this two-year process since April 2023. The organisation acknowledges the extensive public consultations, rigorous evidence-gathering, and balanced engagement with all stakeholders from large and small media houses to digital platforms, government, academics, and public-interest organisations.
In her remarks, Commissioner Doris Tshepe, who handed the report to the Minister of Trade, Industry, and Competition, Parks Tau, underscored the democratic significance of this Inquiry. She noted that: “This is not an ordinary Inquiry… It has done so in a sector which has a critical role to play in supporting democracy in our country and protecting many of the constitutional rights of citizens, including the freedom of expression.”
Commissioner Tshepe further emphasised that the report offers “a suite of remedies and recommendations… more likely to result in a financially sustainable media moving forward.”
SANEF shares this sentiment and notes that the media’s ability to inform citizens, hold those in power accountable, and sustain local journalism lies at the heart of a healthy democracy. We believe that these outcomes, if properly implemented, could help stabilise and revitalise the industry, particularly for community and vernacular media outlets that have been hardest hit by the economic and digital transitions.
The Chairperson of the Inquiry, James Hodge, in presenting the findings, highlighted the dominance of major global digital platforms such as Google, Meta, YouTube, and X in search, social media, and advertising markets. These imbalances, he noted, have undermined the financial sustainability of South African media, particularly as news content is scraped and monetised without fair compensation. Hodge said that while “Google scrapes news content from media websites… the media have relied on referral traffic from users clicking on links to sell advertising on their own website, but this traffic is declining.”
He also pointed out the challenges posed by AI chatbots and advertising technology monopolies, where large international companies extract value from local news content without equitable returns. He said the report should assist in outlining a path forward and identifying opportunities for collective bargaining by media houses, greater government support, and innovative collaborations to enhance sustainability. Download the presentation here
Minister Parks Tau, in accepting the report, committed to submitting it to Parliament’s Portfolio Committee within ten days and to consult with his Cabinet colleagues including Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies, Solly Malatsi, to determine the most effective route for implementing the inquiry recommendations.
SANEF welcomes this commitment and calls for urgent, coordinated action across government, media, and digital platforms to ensure the Inquiry’s findings translate into tangible outcomes that protect and empower the South African news ecosystem.
SANEF is studying this important report and will comment more fully on it after its Council meeting on Saturday, at which the report will be discussed.
This notwithstanding, SANEF applauds the Inquiry’s recognition of the media’s essential democratic role and its attention to both national and community-level challenges. It also notes the constructive spirit in which the Commission and digital platforms engaged to find practical, good-faith remedies.
As the report rightly concludes, revitalising South Africa’s media sector will require a shared commitment from government, industry, business, and the media itself to rebuild a fair, diverse, and financially sustainable media environment.
SANEF reiterates its full support for the implementation of the report’s recommendations and stands ready to collaborate with all stakeholders to ensure that the outcomes of this Inquiry serve the broader public interest and safeguard the future of journalism in South Africa.
ENDS
Note to Editors:
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) is a non-profit organisation whose members are editors, senior journalists, and journalism trainers from all areas of South African media. We are committed to championing South Africa’s hard-won freedom of expression and promoting quality, ethics, and diversity in the South African media. We promote excellence in journalism by fighting for media freedom, writing policy submissions, research, and education and training programmes. SANEF is not a union.
SANEF’s Western Cape convenor Prof Sisanda Nkoala carried the flag of the organisation, in moderating an expert panel on information integrity at the G20-linked AI for Africa conference in Cape Town on 1 October.
She recalled that the theme of information integrity was at the heart of the M20 summit organised by SANEF and MMA on September 2 and 3.
“Without information integrity at the core of our digital interactions, our societies and communities risk being manipulated and destabilised. In this era where we are flooded with content, the need to reassert the truth and trust for information integrity has never been more urgent,” said Prof Nkoala,
The panel assessed the seriousness of the threat of deepfakes to Africa, and covered how media and others are responding to it. Speakers noted that the official G20 Chair’s statements preceding the conference had acknowledged the contributions of the M20 to the G20 ministerial deliberations. Coincidentally, the week of the session saw former Finance Minister Trevor Manual actively dissociate himself after being deepfaked around scam investment advice.
Panelist, Churchill Otieno, Chair of the African Editors Forum, highlighted the problems of Generative AI impostering real journalists to scam the public. Quick response is needed to protect journalists who are victims of deepfakes, he said.
He told how African journalists are using AI tools to work more efficiently, such as in fact-checking but added that they needed time to pursue verification. The African Editors Forum, which includes SANEF, was urging members to label use of AI-generated content in order to promote trust, said Otieno.
Highlighting how news producers should respond to the fake online content, he argued: “Journalists should follow the mantra: they go low, we go high.”
Prof Herman Wasserman of the Centre for Information Integrity in Africa at the University of Stellenbosch reviewed the wider ecosystem of disinformation that includes less-sophisticated tools than deepfakes, with false content also circulating on WhatsApp, by word-of-mouth and in some media outlets.
He noted the problem of governments clamping down on free expression, and factors like social reluctance to correct elders or religious leaders, which exacerbate the sharing of false content.
Although deepfakes are currently just one part of disinformation, technology is moving fast, pointed out panelist Dr Victor Shale of South Africa’s Independent Electoral Commission.
Representing the 47-member Network of African National Human Rights Institutions, Dr Eileen Carter urged collaboration between policy-makers, media, civil society and the private sector, and outreach to grassroots people, to advance digital literacy and accountability. Whereas disinformation in some contexts was seen as a threat to individual privacy and autonomy, in Africa collective rights were at stake, she said.
Speaking from the audience, UNESCO’s Tawfik Jelassi said his organisation will convene a global conference on information integrity in Pretoria. He further signalled UNESCO’s Social Media 4 Peace project in South Africa in which SANEF is a participant.
SANEF members attending 2025 Council in Sandton JHB
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) is pleased to announce the successful conclusion of its Council meeting held on 20 September 2025 in Johannesburg. The meeting brought together editors and senior journalists from across the country to deliberate on key issues affecting journalism in South Africa and the wider global media community.
A major focus of discussions was the forthcoming G20 Heads of State Summit, which South Africa will host in Johannesburg on 22–23 November 2025 under the theme “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability.” The Council engaged extensively on how the Summit and its outcomes will impact the media on the continent and globally, noting the urgent need for journalists to take the initiative in shaping debates on transparency, accountability, and information integrity.
The Council also reviewed the phenomenally successful Media20 (M20) Summit, co-hosted by SANEF and Media Monitoring Africa (MMA), the first of its kind in G20 history. SANEF expressed deep pride in convening such a landmark event of international significance, and extended appreciation to Alt Advisory for its secretariat role, South Africa’s B20 circle, and numerous sponsors and partners from around the world whose support made the M20 possible.
SANEF called on editors, particularly its members, to:
Publish content on the M20 Johannesburg Declaration and its policy briefs.
Bring these issues to the attention of newsrooms and audiences.
Endorse and circulate the Declaration widely.
Critically assess how forthcoming statements from the G20 Digital Ministers (end of September) and G20 Leaders (November) respond to the concerns raised by the M20.
To maintain momentum, SANEF will publish the M20 Summit Report, including the Johannesburg Declaration and policy briefs to be released on 28 September 2025, aligning with World News Day and the UN International Day for Universal Access to Information.
On the same day, SANEF will launch a national campaign urging the Presidency to align with its G20 Summit leadership expectations, aiming to improve access to information by openly engaging with the media and addressing key questions on the country’s political, social, and economic direction.
SANEF also confirmed that it will actively promote the Declaration and its issues at several upcoming forums, including the G20/AU AI Conference and FIFAfrica later this month, October Media Freedom Week, and the African Investigative Journalism Conference in November. A formal handover of the Declaration to the South African government is being planned, alongside follow-up engagements with Communications Minister Solly Malatsi, B20 chair Cas Coovadia, the G20 Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, Data Governance and Innovation, and the Digital Economy Working Group.
At an international advisory group meeting following the M20 Summit, the following framework was adopted:
Vision: To foster a world where media freedom and trustworthy information are sustained, protected, and promoted through collaborative national, regional, and global policy engagements—particularly by leveraging Global South expertise and coalitions.
Mission: To build and sustain a collaborative network of media and information organisations that delivers structured and coordinated action, ensuring the M20 evolves as a dynamic platform aligned with—or critically reflecting on—G20 priorities.
SANEF affirmed its commitment to advancing these objectives and influencing G20 policy through targeted international collaboration.
The Council also deliberated on developments at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, noting recent remarks by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi suggesting possible journalists’ involvement in factional battles within the South African Police Service (SAPS). SANEF reiterated its unequivocal condemnation of unethical practices, including cheque-book journalism, which compromise the credibility of the profession. At the same time, SANEF urged all stakeholders, including political leaders, to provide credible evidence before making allegations, so that media houses can act decisively and fairly. Unsubstantiated accusations against journalists are equally damaging and will not be tolerated.
SANEF reaffirms its commitment to ethical journalism, accountability, and press freedom, and will continue to play a leading role in shaping both the national and international media landscape.
Note to Editors:
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) is a non-profit organisation whose members are editors, senior journalists, and journalism trainers from all areas of South African media. We are committed to championing South Africa’s hard-won freedom of expression and promoting quality, ethics, and diversity in the South African media. We promote excellence in journalism by fighting for media freedom, writing policy submissions, conducting research, and providing education and training programmes. SANEF is not a union.
South Africa is at a critical juncture in the global fight for fairer digital media markets, and a new publication — Framing the Fight for Fairer Digital Markets by Michael Markovitz — provides an essential guide to understanding this moment. This interim analysis explores how a journalism-led civil society alliance, coordinated by the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF), influenced the country’s Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI) led by the Competition Commission.
This document is more than a policy digest for journalists — it is a roadmap to understanding how their future is being shaped behind regulatory and algorithmic curtains. Here’s why every journalist in South Africa should download and study it.
What’s in the Document?
The report offers a detailed account of how a coalition of journalists, media organisations, academics, and public interest groups helped frame the MDPMI’s scope, submissions, and early recommendations. It traces SANEF’s leadership role in coordinating input from community media, public broadcasters, digital rights advocates and academia, creating one of the most significant acts of collaborative journalism advocacy in the democratic era.
Among the coalition’s key contributions were:
Framing the Inquiry Around Constitutional Rights: The alliance positioned journalism as a public good, calling for protections rooted in South Africa’s Constitution, particularly freedom of expression, access to information, and media diversity.
Challenging Algorithmic Bias: The alliance spotlighted how opaque algorithms on platforms like Google and Meta deprioritise local and vernacular news, hurting independent publishers and skewing public access to credible information.
Calling Out AdTech Exploitation: It exposed how programmatic advertising diverts value from quality journalism to viral and often harmful content, demanding structural reform of digital advertising practices.
Defining Credible Journalism Through Accountability: The alliance pushed for regulatory definitions that favour news organisations affiliated with self-regulatory bodies like the Press Council and BCCSA, reinforcing journalistic ethics and trust.
Advocating for a Media Industry Fund: Instead of short-term bailouts, the alliance called for a sustainable, independent fund — financed by a levy on digital ad revenue — to support diverse, public interest journalism across the country.
Highlighting the Public Broadcaster’s Role: The SABC’s exclusion from initial compensation discussions was challenged, ensuring the public broadcaster’s inclusion in eventual remedies.
Addressing Generative AI Exploitation: The alliance raised early concerns about how AI models are trained on news content without permission or compensation, advocating for transparency and negotiation frameworks.
This is not just abstract policy work. The MDPMI has made provisional recommendations that could directly affect newsroom sustainability, algorithmic visibility, and funding models. These include:
Considering ordering Google and other platforms to pay R300–R500 million annually to support South African journalism.
Introducing a 5–10% levy on digital advertising to fund an independent media support structure if platforms refuse fair compensation.
Structural remedies to restore visibility to local and credible journalism in search and social media feeds.
The report also reveals Google’s resistance to these reforms, showing why coordinated advocacy and legal clarity are critical if journalism is to thrive in the digital age.
Why You Should Read It
If you work in journalism today, you’re already affected by the shifting power of platforms. Your stories may not reach audiences not because of their quality, but because an algorithm deprioritised them. You may see advertising revenue fall despite strong readership, or struggle to monetise content in a system stacked against smaller outlets.
This document offers tools to understand — and challenge — that system.
It equips journalists with:
A legal and constitutional framework to defend journalism as a public good.
Knowledge of current digital platform practices and their consequences.
Strategic insight into how collective advocacy is shaping the national agenda.
Conclusion
Framing the Fight for Fairer Digital Markets is a must-read for all journalists, editors, media owners, and journalism educators. It’s not just a snapshot of the past two years of digital policy work; it is a blueprint for how journalists can assert their role in shaping a fairer digital media landscape.
Download it. Read it. Share it. Your newsroom’s survival may depend on what comes next.
Michael Markovitz is the Director of Media Leadership Think-Tank at the Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria
On Saturday, 28 June in Johannesburg, the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) held a non-elective Annual General Meeting that discussed various issues from training and development of journalists, mental wellness, the upcoming Media20 (M20) Summit, and the important role of the Press Council of SA. Also discussed was the long-awaited media engagement between President Cyril Ramaphosa and the broader media in South Africa.
Market and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry/ Competition Commission
The AGM noted the progress that the Competition Commission has made with the Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI) and is looking forward to seeing the final report, expected at the end of August. The AGM was unequivocal in its position that all media entities must be members of the Press Council and/or the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of SA. This has always been SANEF’s position, which abides by the ethical codes set out by these industry bodies.
With the Competition Commission favouring the establishment of a country fund to support journalism, SANEF reiterates its position that no media house should be considered for any possible funding if they do not defer to the guidance of these reputable industry bodies that uphold journalism standards and ethics.
Print and Digital Media Transformation Report
SANEF also noted the release, in June, of the Print and Digital Media Transformation report. While the report marks an important intervention, it however does not include the broadcast media in the country. The exclusion of the broadcast media is unfortunate and makes it difficult to engage with the report, as the entire media landscape – and not just print and digital reporting publications – is facing challenges of sustainability. SANEF is looking to further engage with the GCIS on the report. With regards to the report, SANEF welcomes and supports the recommendation that only those who belong to the Press Council and BCCSA must be considered for any funds intended for the revitalisation of the media in South Africa.
Presidency Engagement
The AGM noted the progressive meeting between SANEF leadership and Kenny Morolong, the deputy minister in the Presidency, following the organisation’s criticism of the government and the Presidency’s attitude towards the South African media.
The meeting was also briefed on the deputy minister’s feedback at a recent media engagement event which he had communicated SANEF’s call on President Cyril Ramaphosa to have a direct engagement with the broader South African media, as he last took questions from the media in 2020. The ball is now in the President’s court.
Training of Journalists
The AGM resolved that more funds need to be raised for the continuous training of journalists. The training should be on areas such as financial journalism, mental wellness, indigenous languages reporting, and other specialised beats such as health and education. An institution of higher learning will be sought, with the view of partnering to provide such training and improvement of skills in newsrooms, given the massive skills deficit in most newsrooms due to the well-documented sustainability challenges of the media sector.
Progress on the M20
SANEF and Media Monitoring Africa, through the support of partners such as Brand SA and Standard Bank, have made significant progress regarding the preparations for the Media 20 (M20). The M20 is an independent initiative by the media and involves a series of media events that will take place parallel to the G20.
An international media summit has been planned for September, and numerous international media organisations have come on board to support the M20 efforts in South Africa.
There will be several policy issue papers that will be released, and more information can be found at Home – Media20. The work continues to focus on areas such as the role of AI in journalism, intellectual property, children in the media, and information integrity.
The safety of journalists is also a topic for the M20.
Note to Editors:
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) is a non-profit organisation whose members are editors, senior journalists, and journalism trainers from all areas of South African media. We are committed to championing South Africa’s hard-won freedom of expression and promoting quality, ethics, and diversity in the South African media. We promote excellence in journalism by fighting for media freedom, writing policy submissions, research, and education and training programmes. SANEF is not a union.
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF), along with nine media partners, submitted a joint response to the Competition Commission’s Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry on Monday, 7 April 2025, the final day for submissions.
The partners include the Press Council of South Africa, Association of Independent Publishers (AIP), Media Monitoring Africa, Forum of Community Journalists, SOS Support Public Broadcasting Coalition, GIBS Media Leadership Think Tank, the Campaign for Free Expression, and the Campaign on Digital Ethics.
Commending the Inquiry’s Provisional Report, the group called it “a strong foundation for enhancing the sustainability of the media ecosystem in South Africa.” They urged the Commission to urgently seek an extension under Section 43B(4)(b) of the Competition Act, ensuring the Inquiry’s continued legal operation and notifying stakeholders accordingly.
Their submission addresses key issues raised in the Provisional Report, highlighting the critical democratic role of a free and independent media.
While the report acknowledged that competition distortions adversely affect constitutional rights—especially among underrepresented vernacular and community media—the submission noted that it failed to specify which rights were impacted. The media partners argue these include the rights to dignity, equality, language and culture, privacy, and access to information. They recommended that each findings section of the final report explicitly identify the rights infringed to better align with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
A key focus of the submission is the call for social media platforms to compensate the media sector. The parties believe there is sufficient justification for compensation and recommend that the Inquiry propose an estimated compensation range payable to a Media Industry Fund. While acknowledging the challenge of quantifying this figure, the group stressed that this should not exempt platforms from accountability for past and ongoing harm.
On children’s rights, the partners urged the Inquiry to propose interventions that shift responsibility from children to adult users and platforms, calling for effective systems to detect and block harmful content.
The group welcomed the recommendation to establish a Media Industry Fund but asked for greater clarity on its structure, purpose, and governance. SANEF and AIP expressed willingness to collaborate further with the Inquiry to ensure their respective funds align with the broader goals of a national media sustainability strategy. “SANEF is amenable to further discussions… to ensure the Journalism Fund South Africa (JFSA) is fit for purpose,” the submission stated.
They also called for the Inquiry to commission independent research to quantify the economic harm caused by big tech’s anti-competitive practices. This research, they argued, should:
Calculate revenue losses across the media landscape, particularly for smaller and community outlets;
Assess the broader democratic impact of newsroom closures and reduced journalistic capacity;
Provide a basis for fair reparations reflecting direct financial losses and societal damage;
Use a 14-year timeframe, matching the Inquiry’s existing scope, to assess long-term effects.
On potential remedies, the group advocated for technology platform reforms. If platforms resist necessary changes, they proposed imposing a levy—rather than a general tax—to ensure the resulting funds are ring-fenced for the Media Industry Fund. “Such a levy could be collected by a sector-specific regulator or a designated government department, guided by appropriate legislation and oversight,” the submission suggested.
The submission also urged the Inquiry to address the structural bias within Google’s search ranking system. It argued that original, local journalism should be promoted without penalising resource-constrained outlets.
The media partners recommended that the Inquiry consider whether new enabling legislation is required to establish the Media Industry Fund. Even if not necessary, they believe the Minister of Trade, Industry, and Competition should be encouraged to develop regulations to support the implementation of any levy or fund.
On data-sharing, the submission emphasised the importance of balancing competition, transparency, and personal privacy. It referenced a November 2024 resolution by the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, which warned against exploitative data practices by tech platforms and recognised equitable access to data as essential for a fair and inclusive digital society.
However, the submission also flagged concerns around surveillance capitalism and the unauthorised scraping of media content for use in commercial AI initiatives. These practices, it argued, undermine the unique value proposition of original journalism, which is costly to produce but easily exploited by technology platforms.
The group concluded by reiterating its support for the Inquiry’s process and findings and affirmed its willingness to continue constructive engagement to safeguard the future of journalism in South Africa.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorised as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyse and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. Opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always active
Necessary cookies are essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Analytics
Analytics cookies are used to track user behaviour on our website. We process these cookies to understand user engagement and improve user experience on our website.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
