For the sake of true media freedom, South Africans must scrutinise organisations like MMA, which operate under the banner of advocacy while covertly advancing external agendas, says the writer.
By Sipho Tshabalala
Media Monitoring Africa (MMA), under the unchallenged leadership of William Bird, portrays itself as a staunch defender of media freedom and ethics in South Africa. Yet, when one peels back the layers, a troubling picture emerges—one that suggests MMA may not be the noble guardian of media integrity it claims to be. Instead, the organisation appears to serve as a front for advancing Western neoliberal agendas, using African narratives as a mere tool for perpetuating external influence over the continent. This raises the question: Is MMA, under the guise of media advocacy, simply a mouthpiece for Western dominance?
At the heart of MMA’s operations lie its funders, who are not just silent partners but rather influential entities pushing neoliberal and pro-Western policies globally. Among the most prominent backers are:
- The Open Society Foundation (OSF): Founded by billionaire George Soros, the OSF is known for championing open markets and Western-style democracy across the globe. Its backing of MMA raises the question of whether MMA’s so-called "media monitoring" is genuinely about African voices or about furthering the interests of Soros’s neoliberal vision.
- Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and the European Commission: These entities form part of the European Union’s agenda to promote Western values in the developing world. Their funding casts a shadow over MMA’s claim of being a true advocate for African media freedom.
- African Media Initiative (AMI): Led by World Bank veteran Eric Chinje, AMI’s involvement aligns MMA with global financial institutions that have long promoted Western economic policies in Africa. This partnership further undermines MMA’s portrayal as an independent watchdog.
The question that looms large is: Why are these powerful Western entities funnelling money into MMA? The answer becomes apparent in the organisation's selective advocacy and skewed priorities. If MMA were truly committed to safeguarding African voices, its activities would not so consistently align with Western geopolitical interests.
While MMA champions transparency in journalism, it ironically operates behind a veil of financial secrecy. The organisation has not disclosed detailed financial reports, leaving the true scale of its funding and expenditures shrouded in mystery. This is particularly concerning given the substantial amounts involved. For instance, in 2023 alone, the Open Society Foundation disclosed that it granted MMA $200,000 (approximately R3.4 million). If this is just one slice of the financial pie, then the total sum flowing from all its funders must be quite considerable. Where is all this money going?
If MMA can demand transparency from media outlets, why does it shy away from applying the same standards to itself? The lack of financial disclosure raises doubts about the organisation’s integrity and begs the question: Is MMA simply using the veneer of media advocacy to conceal a deeper allegiance to its funders’ neoliberal agendas?
William Bird has led MMA since its inception in 1993—a reign that spans three decades without a leadership change. This lack of rotation suggests not only a stagnation in vision but also an unwillingness to subject the organisation to the very standards of accountability it demands from others. Why has Bird clung so tightly to his position, if not to ensure MMA remains aligned with the interests of its Western financiers? His unchecked leadership raises red flags about whether MMA is genuinely independent or merely an extension of its backers' geopolitical ambitions.
MMA’s selective involvement in legal cases reveals a troubling bias towards Western-aligned entities and neoliberal interests. Consider the following examples:
- The Call for President Putin’s Arrest: When MMA joined litigation in support of the Democratic Alliance’s demand for South Africa to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin, it aligned itself with a party funded by Michiel Le Roux, a known supporter of the neoliberal Millennium Trust. This stance directly contradicted broader African sentiments, which view Russia as a counterbalance to Western hegemony.
- Backing News24 and Karyn Maughan: In supporting Maughan’s legal battles against Jacob Zuma, MMA positioned itself alongside large media corporations with a history of perpetuating Western narratives. Such selective advocacy suggests that MMA’s so-called media freedom efforts are more about preserving the status quo than defending diverse viewpoints.
- Ignoring Independent Media and Thabo Makwakwa: When journalist Thabo Makwakwa and Independent Media were targeted by the government over claims of CIA interference in the African National Congress, MMA's silence was deafening. The organisation that supposedly defends media ethics conveniently avoided supporting a case that challenged Western geopolitical interests.
MMA’s activities raise serious questions about whether it serves as a watchdog for media freedom or a guard dog for Western interests. Its funding sources, opaque financial practices, and selective legal interventions suggest that it is less concerned with protecting African voices and more focused on advancing a neoliberal agenda. The evidence points to a troubling reality: MMA is not the independent entity it claims to be but rather a tool used by powerful Western entities to shape narratives and maintain influence over Africa.
For the sake of true media freedom, South Africans must scrutinise organisations like MMA, which operate under the banner of advocacy while covertly advancing external agendas. The time has come to unmask Media Monitoring Africa and question whether its claims to defend media integrity are merely a façade for deeper, more sinister ambitions.
* Sipho Tshabalala is an independent writer, commentator and analyst.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.