Not since the days of apartheid has freedom of speech been under such threat in South Africa. Firstly, there is the Protection of Information (POI) Bill that will give the government wide-ranging powers to classify state information and jail those who reveal it. Secondly, the ANC and SACP is pushing for a state-appointed media tribunal to oversee complaints against journalists.  Lastly, the jackboot arrest and detention of Sunday Times investigative reporter Mzilikazi wa Afrika on the basis that he received a fax purporting to be the resignation of the Mpumalanga premier (but never wrote a story) suggests, in Wa Afrika’s own assessment, that the state plans to abuse both the POI Bill and proposed media tribunal.

So what is the POI Bill?

If it went through in its present form, it would give the government wide-ranging powers to classify  anything it likes if it is deemed harmful to the “national interest” and jail anyone for revealing classified information for between 3 and 25 years without the option of a fine. The national interest, however, is defined very broadly and includes, for instance, “the protection and preservation of all things owned  or maintained for the public by the State” (i.e. anything to do with parastatals ) and also  commercial  information in the government’s possession – therefore any information relating to tenders could be classified.

It gives the power to classify information to “subordinate staff members” in government departments and although the public would be able to apply to have information declassified through the Promotion of Access to Information Act, if the requested information is classified as top secret the government may refuse to confirm or deny it even exists.

At the moment the Bill is at the Portfolio Committee hearing stage in Parliament, where proposed laws (if the Bill is passed, it becomes an Act) are debated and submissions from the public and stakeholders are made. It is before the Ad Hoc Committee on the Protection of Information Bill chaired by Cecil Burgess. Intelligence Minister Dr Siyabonga Cwele said on August 12 that he needed two to three more weeks to consider all the submissions on the Bill.

Since then, however, the man who issued the original POI Bill, Ronnie Kasrils,  has condemned the new iteration of the Bill. In an exclusive piece for the Daily Dispatch newspaper, Kasrils has done a detailed analysis of the new POI Bill, showing how it was changed from the version he issued. The new version betrays the intention of the original Bill, he says, which was to make state information more transparent and accessible.

A bit of history on the POI Bill

The Bill was first issued in March 2008 by the Intelligence Ministry under Ronnie Kasrils and there was an immediate outcry that it was too Draconian. Kasrils sent the Bill to the Ministerial Review Commission on Intelligence comprising  Joe Matthews, Dr Frene Ginwala and Laurie Nathan. The aim of the review was to “strengthen mechanisms of control of the civilian intelligence structures in order to ensure full compliance and alignment with the Constitution, constitutional principles and the rule of law, and particularly to minimise the potential for illegal conduct and abuse of power”.

The commission came back a few months later with recommendations: Chiefly that the Bill be rewritten so that, among other things, the broadly defined idea of national interest be scrapped and that only the Intelligence Minister have the right to classify categories of information – subject to comment by Parliament and interested parties. The suggested changes would bring the Bill in line with the Constitution so that the right to freedom of expression would not be infringed upon.

Then in July 2010, the Bill reached the Portfolio Committee hearings stage and everyone realised that not only had the recommendations of the commission been ignored but that various “softening” factors contained in the original Bill had been removed and certain parts had been made harsher, for example, penalties for revealing classified information.

Further reading:

“How my Bill was betrayed” by Ronnie Kasrils (writing for Daily Dispatch)
Dave Steward, executive director of the FW de Klerk Foundation,  covering the nitty gritty of the Bill.
Video: Mail & Guardian editor Nic Dawes’ submission on the POI Bill at the Portfolio Committee hearing.
Constitutional-law expert Pierre de Vos’ analysis on the hearings.
“Secrecy law threatens SA’s democratic credentials” by Fiona Forde in Business Day.
“POI Bill is veil for ANC secrets going back to 20 years” by Gill Moodie at Bizcommunity.

Documents:

The report back from the Ministerial Review Commission on Intelligence comprising  Joe Matthews, Dr Frene Ginwala and Laurie Nathan.
The POI Bill.
Parliamentary Monitoring Group’s web page with submissions to the portfolio committee on the POI Bill and a summary transcript of the hearings.
The Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution.

What does the idea of a Media Appeals Tribunal come from?

The proposal for a tribunal was first raised at the ANC’s 2007 conference in Polokwane but fell off the agenda amid criticism that it would infringe on the freedom of the media.

Then in 2010, it was back on the table again as a working paper for the ANC’s National General Council, planned for September. This comes after the Cape Argus newspaper in Cape Town came out with stunning revelations that a former political reporter and political editor of the paper used their positions to help former Western Cape Premier Ebrahim Rasool – now on his way to the United States as South Africa’s ambassador – in a campaign against political rivals within the ANC. The former reporter, Ashley Smith, also claimed and that the two received money from a public-relations company that obtained provincial-government contracts.
The ANC and SACP say that media self-regulation through the Press Ombudsman is not independent as the ombudsman is funded by the media industry and that many people are prohibited from taking legal action against the media because going through the courts is an expensive and lengthy process.   (If a complaint is taken to the Press Ombusdman, the complainant waives the right to sue but the media are bound by ombudsman’s ruling. )

The ANC and SACP say they are committed to media freedom and the tribunal would be independent from government but the media and many in civil society are concerned that it will be abused by the state to crack down on exposes of government corruption and maladminitration – and used to penalise journalists for such exposes.

The South African Editors’ Forum (Sanef) is leading the fight against the POI Bill and state-appointed media tribunal, saying they will curb media freedom in a manner that is unconstitutional. Sanef has formed an action committee to build a coalition to fight against the tribunal and POI Bill. Recently, 36 of the country’s editors signed what they called the “Auckland Park Declaration” announcing their opposition to both.

Further reading:

Journalism.co.za article on the nitty gritty of the proposed media tribunal and the arguments for and against.
The Ashley Smith scandal and how the Cape Argus investigated and exposed the revelations.
How and why the Auckland Park Declaration was signed.
Constitutional-law expert Pierre de Vos on why the media tribunal is a case of “Boiled chickens pretending to be plumed peacocks”.
“Would Media Appeals Tribunal be constitutional?” by Pierre de Vos.
Tribunal a refuge for the corrupt, says (Cosatu’s) Vavi
The Press Ombudsman’s website, where it publishes all its rulings.
Sanef’s website.

Documents:

ANC document on Media Ownership, Transformation and Diversity.
The SACP on why it supports the ANC call for a media tribunal.
SACP deputy secretary-general Jeremy Cronin on why there is a need for a media tribunal.
President Jacob Zuma on the media tribunal and why the press need not fear it.

And then police swooped on Mzilikazi was Afrika…

How the Sunday Times covered the arrest of wa Afrika.

When the police arrested Sunday Times investigative journalist Mzilikazi wa Afrika outside the paper’s office on  August 4 while he was on his way to answer questions at a police station about a fax he had received purporting to be the resignation letter of the Mpumalanga premier, it put the scare into many – and not just the media – across the country.

The police had no arrest warrant, did not give Wa Afrika access to his attorney for hours even though he demanded it. They also searched his home and took notebooks without a search warrant and then refused to release him despite the fact that three prosecutors said there was no case. He was released on R5000 bail after his newspaper went to to the high court – but then there was nothing on the charge sheet.

Sound like the bad old days of apartheid? It’s no exaggeration to say there is now alarm across newsrooms in the country and that the proposed media tribunal and POI Bill seem far more sinister.
Wa Afrika himself says: “I am worried. I was arrested for receiving a fax. If this Bill is passed, what will they arrest us for next?… What happened (to me) shows how they are going to abuse (the Bill).”

The international media has picked up on Wa Afrika’s arrest and  big business has voiced its opposition towards these threats to media freedom. Interestingly, there is dissent in the ANC alliance. Both Cosatu and Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale have come out in support of the media – as has influential businesswomen and former struggle stalwart Mamphele Ramphele.

Further reading:

Main Sunday Times story on Wa Afrika’s arrest.
Wa Afrika’s account of what happened during his detention.
Sunday Times editor Ray Hartley’s open letter to President Jacob Zuma after Wa Afrika’s arrest.
Interview (question & answer) with Mzilikazi wa Afrika about his detention and reporting in Mpumalanga.
City Press journalist has gun pointed at him in Mpumalanga in the same week of Wa Afrika’s arrest.
Japhet Ncube in City Press: “How freedom dies”.
News24’s dedicated “Media under threat” page.

City Press’s Ferial Haffajee, journalism professor Anton Harber, media activist Mark Weinberg and ANC spokesman Jackson Mthembu have their last say on media freedom in South Africa at the M&G’s Critical Thinking Forum in Johannesburg earlier this month. M&G editor Nic Dawes is the chairing the discussion. Click here to read the Daily Maverick story on the forum.

You might have heard British journalist Neal Collins on Radio 702 or Cape Talk during the Soccer World Cup or read his stories in the Independent’s newspapers such as The Mercury.The veteran sports writer of top UK papers such as the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard has South African roots – growing up in Centurion and starting his career at SA newspapers – which is how he ended up freelancing more for South African media organisations while covering the World Cup rather than those back at home. Having covered many World Cups and Olympics, Collins tells how South Africa shaped up for the media mob. (The vid below is Neal on his recently published novel, “A Game Apart”, set on the football fields of apartheid South Africa and click here to go his blog.)

GILL MOODIE: You’ve covered World Cups before this – in France in 1998 and Germany in 2001 – so how did this one in SA rate generally? Was it harder or easier to cover? Was it more fun?
NEAL COLLINS: I think the problem was that the British and European journalists were generally taken out of their safety zones… We’ve had rugby and cricket world cups here and many (UK) journalist came out to cover them. But rugby and cricket writers tend to be more middle-class, I guess, and the sport they’re covering is more upmarket and they don’t often have to go to the townships… It struck me that the football writers would have preferred to have been in Germany or France because it’s easier, you move around better, you wouldn’t ever have to confront a shanty town on the side of the road or a taxi driver who doesn’t really know where’s he’s going… But by and large, talking to the English journalists and fans who came here, I think they really enjoyed it… All the way through this (tournament) it was about perceptions of Africa – not just South Africa – and a feverish belief that it would be a crap World Cup and chaotic. I think it turned around and there’s no question that people recognised that South Africa was capable (of hosting a football World Cup).

MOODIE: What was the access to teams and coaches like?
COLLINS: It was horrendous. I don’t think anyone can accuse Fifa of going soft on security. The Leriba Lodge and the Irene Lodge – where the Italians and Americans were staying – were completely closed down with helicopters over them and security guards. You couldn’t even get into the hotels. At other World Cups, the security was less Draconian and you could contact the teams. A couple of times the Argentineans were out in Menlyn Shopping Centre (in Pretoria) and a couple of people saw (Wayne) Rooney out in Kempton Park early on in the competition and got his signature. Although we had a couple of open days (at which the public could watch a team train) – and I went along to the Dutch and Portuguese open days – you saw mounted police and people with machine guns protecting them. It was a bit heavy. You wouldn’t get that in England, I don’t think.

MOODIE: So you found that with the English team too – even though you must have had lot of contacts there?
COLLINS: Of course. You couldn’t get near them but I think they (the team) did that themselves… The lack of access (to teams in general) is definitely one of my big complaints and hopefully in Brazil (at the next World Cup), they will get it right and make sure that the fans will get to see their idols and not just at matches but in training… Click here to read the rest of the interview at journalism.co.za.

If you haven’t caught the Penguins of Madagascar spin-off series on DStv’s Nickelodeon then you’re missing out. They have all the makings of a cult classic and my five-year-old daughter and I race for the remote when they’re on. Here’s a tribute to Rico, who’s soul reason for being in the Fab Four is to regurgitate useful stuff up. These penguins have, as Skipper would say, major moxy.

Question: You have said you want to have news from all the provinces beyond the major urban areas such as Joburg, Cape Town and Durban. But I can’t see how good news is going to sell in the rural areas such as the Transkei in the Eastern Cape, where people are trapped in desperate poverty and they feel abandoned by the provincial and local governments. Clinics are not staffed properly and do not have the drugs they should; the schools are falling apart…

Mvoko: Look, you would find it hard to convince someone who feels hard done by lack of service delivery. Being at the receiving end of inefficiency or injustice or lack of service delivery hardly makes you receptive to a good-news story because your world is bad. But what we’re saying is that rational thought should form part of any public discourse and give credit where it is due. That is not to say we’re going to tell everybody that everything is hunky dory, thank you very much…And it doesn’t mean we’re going to listen to every politician who says “we’ve done a lot”. We will interrogate those facts…

Question: You might feel you’re a pathfinder but lots of people see The New Age as a government mouthpiece. Aren’t you worried how this position will reflect on you professionally?

Mvoko: I’m not worried. The reality is that each and every editor is under some pressure or the other on a consistent basis. There are people who want to influence you, not just your stories on a particular day but also the direction of your publication…My point is that the whole holier-than-thou attitude (towards The New Age) is not on. The issue for the editor is how you deal with those pressures, how you make sure that at the end of the day you service your reader and speak to the values of your editorial direction. You will lose some and you will win some.

Click here to read the full interview at Bizcommunity.

I believe Vuyo when he says this but, frankly, it is highly unlikely that the Gupta family who is the major shareholder in The New Age’s publishers and is close to the Zuma family, will not want Zuma-friendly coverage and for those in Zuma’s inner circle. Click here to read a May 2010 story by the M&G on the relationship between the Guptas and the Zumas.

Vuyo Mvoko

Of course, Mvoko is right about pressures on editors countrywide but The New Age is quite openly ANC-aligned: besides the Gupta funding, Essop Pahad is on the board of directors, one of Zuma’s son was floating around at the paper’s launch and  The New Age name is a resusitation of a 1960s ANC journal.

Mvoko says the paper will be critical of government when its needs to be and the raison d’etre here is to do good news but, let’s face it, when you’ve got 32 pages to fill on a daily basis, all those crime and grime stories will have to be used. The government news agency, BuaNews, is already paid to find happy-camper delivery stories and they don’t come up with more than a handful  a day. Then the pressure will really come down on Mvoko’s head so watch that space.  I would advise that Mvoko try avoid taking calls from unhappy publishing higher-ups as much as possible. This apparently worked well for Zwelakhe Sisulu when he was head of the SABC.

The other interesting things about The New Age is:

1. The sheer ambition of the project. Conventional wisdom tells us that new newspapers take four to five years to break even so you have to have deep pockets to go the distance. There are plans for 170 000 circulation sold at R3.50 (the biggest paper in the country, the Daily Sun, has taken more than five years to get to about 480 000 sold for R2.30 and they started at a R1 cover price). On top of that there are plans to buy a press, which will be megabucks, and give us overcapacity in the SA printing industry as both Media24 and Caxton have fabulous modern web presses.   (Look out Avusa, who has said it is looking for new options beyond its TNPC joint printing venture with the Independent Group in Johannesburg.) Click here for a very good article at The Daily Maverick on the business side of things at The New Age.

2. The fact that The New Age will be an unusual format for SA — the narrower Financial Times format — and is breaking with convention and offering advertising on centimetre square basis as well as column centimetre. I asked a senior media planner if this will prove to be a hassle to advertisers and he said:

With regards the pricing…they will offer two forms of pricing to begin with…traditional column centimetre rates as well as the per square centimetre rate. The square centimetre method does give advertisers more flexibility in terms of sizes, but I don’t know that many advertisers will see it this way. I would think most advertisers would just supply the same sized material that they produce for the other papers anyway. I do think it is going to cause huge confusion though when it comes to advertising agencies’ billing systems and how we load and invoice clients. I think there could quite likely end up being many account queries because the agency understood things to be one way, but the newspaper understands them to be another way. So I think if they proceed in this manner, it will be an interesting first few months until everyone gets their heads around the calculation of rates and ad sizes… They say they adopted the model from The Times of India and that whilst it did cause confusion there for a while, it has become the new standard in terms of how all newspapers there now do business. Time will tell how it will work here.

3. I am getting the sense that The Times of India is a very active strategic partner in The New Age’s owners, TNA Media. The New Age’s IT system is a repilca of theirs, The New Age is adopting advertising measures from them and Mvoko told me that The Times of India’s publisher was in SA about two weeks ago to meet with him and others. The Times of India is a massively successful operation — about 4-million daily circulation — so they certainly know their potatoes when it come to English publications in multilingual developing nations. I think they are the best thing that The New Age has going for him and, who knows, maybe The Times of India’s publisher is looking for a foothold in SA with an eye on our substantial Indian community that is by and large a high-LSM group. In the press release for the paper’s launch, The Times of India’s group CEO, Ravi Dhariwal, said: “We are excited about this opportunity to partner with a new national daily and a young nation. We will work closely with our partners in The New Age to fulfill their commitment to produce a quality broadsheet while empowering the emerging South Africa”.

4. What has also puzzled me is the presence of Essop Pahad, Thabo Mbeki’s minister in the presidency and his main enforcer. What does this mean? Is Pahad looking for political comeback by getting on the right side of  Zuma? How fascinating. We shall see what we shall see. Click here for Alec Hogg’s interview with Pahad  on his SAfm radio show.

So Piers Morgan might be replacing Larry King (click here to read the Daily Maverick story), which would be pretty interesting if it came to pass. I rather liked the “Piers Morgan On…” show, especially the way he asked awkward questions in such a nice, nonconfrontational manner — and usually got the answers. One of the things Morgan is most famous for is being punched by Jeremy Clarkson at a British Press Awards function. In this vid, Parkinson asks him about it.

What the revamped website looks like.

Well, blow me down but Business Day has a new-look website — and very pleasing it is too! It often seems to me that Business Day and BDFM in general is treated as the poor step-sister in the Avusa family (BDFM is a joint venture, which means it is owned jointly by Avusa and Pearson, the owner of the Financial Times of London).

So while much attention is lavished on Avusa’s Times Live, Business Day’s website seems to have trundled along in a very low-key fashion for many years. Quite frankly, I find this very odd as Business Day actually has something unique that users out there might well be prepared to pay for: It is the country’s premier business publication and consistently turns out thoughtful analysis and comment on SA’s business and political worlds by experienced writers such as Tim Cohen, Eusebius McKaiser, Dave Mars and Hilary Joffe.

Giving their unique content away for free has always struck me as even odder as it must be culling the circulation of the print publication.  (And, in fact, editor Peter Bruce has said he suspects as much but then why would you listen to him — he’s only the editor.)

But back to the revamped website: it’s more cleanly designed with more white space, bigger font sizes, more thumbnails in colour — generally more lively but also more professional looking. There’s no irritating bells and whistles: the new design gets the job done, which is to convey information to busy businesspeople. It is also much easier to access the blog zone.   Click here to read a blog post by Business Day’s Des Latham on the recent changes.

The general gist of the thinking behind the changes — and Peter Bruce was involved in the redesign — is that the paper’s copy will no longer be fed arbitrarily onto the site but that there will  be more thought given to what should be flagged and how things should be weighted in order to make it more user-friendly. It sounds like someone’s actually being paid to be an online editor. That’s excellent news and well overdue.

The only criticism I have is that it seems slow but I’m sure that’s just the usual bugs and gremlins that come with a redesign and it will all be sorted out soon. Click here to go to the new-look Business Day.

It makes for a dramatic business story because, 15 years ago, the companies were of a similar size but now Naspers is an aggressive multinational that has forged an adventurous and lucrative path into the digital arena in countries such as China and Russia. The sexiest thing you can say about Avusa, however, is that it is the owner of the Sunday Times but even that has lost its cachet. Once South Africa’s biggest paper, that title now goes to the Daily Sun, owned by – you guessed it – Naspers.

So while Naspers seems savvy, Avusa appears shambolic. Naspers is bold and brave. Avusa doesn’t seem to have a plan.

But is it really fair to compare the two? Avusa is actually in the “B” league, same as Caxton, the printing firm and owners of The Citizen and a large number of community papers. Caxton’s financial year-end is at the end of June, so its annual results will be out in about September. Naspers is in the “A” league -and uniquely so in South Africa.

Click here to get a handle on the scope of the Naspers empire that spans the newspapers and magazines of Media24 (such as City Press and Rapport) to MultiChoice in SA and across the continent to Internet operations in Brazil, Eastern Europe and India. Now click here to have a look at Avusa’s company structure, which is SA-based (in fact the company pulled back a few years ago from Africa) and mostly old media: newspapers, book publishing, cinema, book stores and music.

So, separating the two companies out, what do the analysts say about them?….. Click here to read the rest of the column at Bizcommunity.

Gill Moodie: The first South African media folk really knew about NewsDay was that the Zimbabwean Media Commission granted permission for new newspapers in the country and then a week later (on June 7), you launched NewsDay. I would imagine that you had been preparing for this for quite some time?
Trevor Ncube: Yes, which is why we have basically been able to hit the ground running. We have had over the past 12 months a core team to which we’ve been adding as we thought the prospects were improving for us to be registered (by the commission). For me, the turning point was the inclusive government (with Morgan Tsvangirai as prime minister). When I saw it being put in place and in it there was a strong component about freeing up of the media, that was the window that I was looking for and I said: ‘This is our time; we’ve always wanted to do this’. So we started preparations then.

NewsDay's website.

Moodie: And this was about a year ago?
Ncube: Yes, on September 15 last year. That’s when we really started putting together a business plan in earnest and asking ourselves: ‘What do we need?’ One of the first things I identified was that we needed was a printing press because we didn’t have one.

Moodie: What have you been printing on up till now?
Ncube: We owned 25% of a printing press but we were not in charge of the management of that printing press.

Moodie: May I ask who is ‘we’?
Ncube: I shouldn’t use ‘we’. Alpha Media Holdings is the company that publishes NewsDay. I control 61% of that company and we publish two other weeklies (in Zimbabwe): the Zimbabwean Independent, which is a business weekly, and The Standard, which is a Sunday newspaper. We have a printing company that does commercial printing and we’ve just added a newspaper web press to that. The first challenge in buying the web press was the fundraising. The second was to go out and find the press.

Moodie: Which is a big deal. Did you have to go to Europe?
Ncube: We went to the Netherlands. We found one there and we did it in record time. We also had to identify a building (in Harare) that could accommodate a printing press but there wasn’t one. We had to build a new factory for the press, with a purpose-built foundations so that it doesn’t shake and so on.

Moodie: The web press itself must have cost about R40 or R50-million?
Ncube: No, it wasn’t exactly a brand new press but, ja, it wasn’t cheap. And then we had to ship it. Identifying the press and shipping it into Durban, building the press and putting it in – we did it in a record six months.

Moodie: That’s amazing. The standard is about 18 months, isn’t it?
Ncube: Yes, and our factory is one of the best printing press facilities that I’ve seen in the world – immaculately staffed, which tells us that there are still skills in Zimbabwe. When I went into that printing press I was so proud… To get the printers, we poached from other printers but we also found unemployed people. Industry in Zimbabwe is running at between 20% and 30% of capacity and unemployment is around 80% or 90% depending on who you listen to. So there are lot of skilled people who don’t have jobs and we managed to find the printers and specialised people to man the press. The next challenge was to find the editorial people and production people, people in accounts, sales and in distribution… We have had a core staff of about 12 people, looking at layouts and design for the newspaper, and also looking around in the market to see who’s available and who’s not available. We own our own distribution company – that’s the advantage that we have. One thing that 20 years in this business has taught me is that in African countries, it’s important that you control your own printing and distribution if you are to be a serious player… Click here to read the rest of the interview at Bizcommunity.

You might have sprung the cash to go see two or three live games during the tournament but most of us caught the action on the telly in our own homes or at pubs and fan parks. Which is why Sunday’s world cup final – the peculiar heavy-breathing world feed commentator John Helm aside – between Spain and the Netherlands broke broadcasting records around the globe. Among them:

* 700-million people watched the game globally, according to FIFA, which is more than the 600 million who watched the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics in 2008.
* A record average of 16-million people in Spain watched the game on the three channels broadcasting the match in the country.
* In the UK, the BBC’s audience was million, compared with 3.3 million for ITV – the state broadcaster’s biggest audience for a world cup final since France 1998.
* Even in the US, where football is viewed largely as a game for girls, 24 million people watched the final – a record audience for the broadcast of a soccer game in the country.

It would make Arthur C Clarke proud and here in South Africa we’re likely to produce record-breakers, too, although the finalised TAMS numbers for the Spain-Netherlands clash from the South African Advertising Research Foundation (SAARF) were not available at the time of writing. In-home figures for the two semifinals, however, show that 10.344 million South Africans watched the Uruguay-Netherlands game and 10.279 million watched the Germany-Spain match.

Likewise, the numbers for the final at DStv’s SuperSport – which held the exclusive pay-TV rights for the world cup for Africa – are being finalised, but it looks like it’s shaping up to be a best-ever: 1.433 million households, not taking into account out-of-home viewers. Clinton van der Berg, SuperSport International’s communications manager, says this would put the South African audience for the world cup final higher than the recent Super14 rugby final in Soweto (1.299 million households) and the South Africa-Mexico opening World Cup game (1.247 million).

According to SAARF TAMS figures, 10.15 million South Africans watched the crucial South Africa-Uruguay match in which we were exited from the tournament, while 10.06 million caught the SA-Mexico game and then 9.5 million of us tuned in to support the last African team standing, Ghana, when it played Uruguay in the knockout phase.

Incredible as these figures are, one wonders if it has translated into lots of lovely lolly in advertising revenue. Was this the media bonanza many were hoping for? Independent media planner (and football fan of note) Gordon Muller thinks not. The SABC ad rates were prohibitively high for many advertisers, he says, and the broadcast rights came at a pretty penny. He believes outdoor advertising firms and those not having to pay for media rights, such as newspapers, scored the most out of this world cup… Click here to read the full column at Bizcommunity.

UPDATE: Since the writing of this column, Saarf released the TAMS stats (compiled by Nielsen) for the Spain-Netherlands final:

Johannesburg, July, 14 2010 – As 11 059 000 South Africans – some 33.1% of the nation* – sat down to watch the final of Africa’s first FIFA World Cup on television, 1 883 000 Irish people did the same, topping the list for reach of population with 45.7%.

Possibly buoyed by their team’s great start to the tournament, 39 202 000 Americans – over 13% – topped the list of sheer numbers watching the final, with Italian supporters coming in second at 24 697 000 – more than 43% of that country’s population. Mexicans numbered 16 131 000 viewers (31.8% reach), taking third place for individual supporters watching TV.

With a slightly higher reach of 43.8%, Swedish numbers translated to 3 948 000 viewers, and 3 966 000 Hungarians also lent their support to the spectacle.

Nielsen says some 14 421 000 Indonesians (29.1%) also had the TV tuned to see who would be crowned world champions and Croatians, too, were keen to see the final, with 1 748 000 or 42.3% of the population cheering a team on. Poland’s marginally lower reach of 42.1% translated to more individual viewers than Croatia, at 15 145 000.

Fans from Armenia and Moldova numbered 544 000 and 879 000 respectively; while Georgia and Azerbaijan transmitted the match to 467 000 and 905 000 respectively. With a large number of viewers throughout the competition, Thailand viewers numbered 8 654 000 for the final.

New Zealand’s 937 000 viewers comprised 23.4% of its population, while Australia’s 9.2% reach saw 1 371 000 fans watching. Nielsen reports that 3 159 000 South Koreans cheered the game, while just over half that number of Taiwanese football fans – 1 110 000 – did the same. Puerto Rico’s 877 000 viewers translates to 23.1% of its population and Cyprus’s 292 000 meant 38.5% of its people saw the final.

Across 30 countries, it’s estimated that 164 963 000 in-home viewers saw Spain defeat the Dutch by one goal to nil – and receive a hero’s welcome in Barcelona.

*Source: SAARF TAMS