By Sipho Tshabalala
Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) positions itself as a defender of ethical journalism and human rights in South Africa, but a deeper analysis exposes a troubling truth: the organisation is a puppet in the hands of powerful Western funders. While MMA claims to uphold media freedom, its actions suggest that its true mission is to serve the interests of those who fund it, rather than the South African public.
Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) itself is being scrutinised for its operations and origins. Emerging prominently in 1993, just before the first democratic elections in South Africa. The organisation’s rapid rise and the significant influence it wields raise questions about who MMA is truly monitoring. The organisation claims to monitor the media, but its focus seems to be on safeguarding Western interests rather than impartial media practices. The purpose behind MMA’s monitoring activities appears aligned with advancing the agendas of its powerful funders, rather than serving the South African public. Given these concerns, it is imperative that MMA’s true origins, its backers, and the real motivations behind its selective advocacy are investigated.
The real power behind MMA must lies in its funders, which include influential Western entities like George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the European Commission, and the German government’s Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Foundation. There is a reason that these powerful western entities are funding MMA, it reveals itself in the way the MMA chooses the cases to support which mostly have a western narrative and they mostly admonish those that oppose it. This scenario reflects a modern form of neo-colonialism, where Western powers continue to control African narratives through media influence.
William Bird, the director of MMA, emerges as a mere tool of these funders, executing their agenda with precision. His selective advocacy raises serious concerns about the true motives behind MMA’s operations. Bird’s actions are not those of an independent advocate for media freedom but rather those of a pawn in a larger game of media control.
In high-profile cases, Bird’s loyalty to his funders is evident. When News24 journalist Karyn Maughan was criticised by an opinion piece published by Sunday Independent, Bird rushed to her defence, aligning himself with the interests of a Western-backed media outlet. He wrote an opinion piece for News24 and joined the case as a friend of the court, further showcasing his bias. Similarly, when amaBhungane, an investigative journalism group linked to Daily Maverick, faced legal action from The Moti Group, Bird once again sided with the Western-aligned media.
However, when Independent Media faced legal challenges from the South African government over its exposure of alleged U.S. interference in the ANC, Bird and MMA were notably silent. There was no opinion piece, no friend of the court intervention—nothing, ignoring the principles of impartiality that MMA claims to uphold. This glaring inconsistency highlights the selective nature of MMA’s advocacy, which seems to protect only those outlets that align with Western interests.
This pattern of behaviour underscores the reality that William Bird and MMA are not acting in the interest of media freedom or democracy. Instead, they are instruments of the powerful Western funders who finance their operations. These funders have a vested interest in controlling the narrative in South Africa, ensuring that media coverage aligns with their geopolitical goals.
In this context, Bird is less a director and more a puppet, whose strings are pulled by those who finance his organisation. The selective defence of certain media outlets, coupled with the conspicuous silence of others, reveals a deep-seated bias that serves Western interests rather than the South African public.
The broader question then becomes: What does this mean for freedom of speech in South Africa? When an organisation like MMA, supposedly dedicated to media freedom, is controlled by Western interests, the very concept of free expression is at risk. Clealry the funders behind MMA are not merely supporting media advocacy; they are controlling it, ensuring that only narratives favourable to their interests are allowed to thrive.
In the end, William Bird’s role is clear: he is not a champion of media freedom but a pawn in a much larger game of influence and control, played by the powerful funders behind MMA. The organisation’s actions, clearly dictated by its funders, threaten the very freedom it claims to protect, leaving South Africa’s media landscape vulnerable to external manipulation.
* Sipho Tshabalala is an independent writer and analyst.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.