SECTOR 3 Mention was also made of a considerable amount of incompetence among the national broadcaster’s staff, which may be construed as censorship. “Often people are put into positions of power at the SABC because they are known not to question the status quo and they are easily manipulated by the powers that be.” Scores: Individual scores: 1 Country does not meet indicator 2 Country meets only a few aspects of indicator 3 Country meets some aspects of indicator 4 Country meets most aspects of indicator 5 Country meets all aspects of the indicator Average score: 2.0 (2010: n/a; 2008: n/a; 2006: n/a) 3.6 The state/public broadcaster is adequately funded in a manner that protects it from political interference through its budget and from commercial pressure. The SABC receives a very high percentage of its income from commercial funding. Over the past few years its approximate funding split (as reflected in its various Annual Reports) has been: advertising and sponsorship (81%), licence fees (17%) and only 2% directly from government allocations. As a public broadcaster, it is risky for the SABC to be so reliant on commercial funding as this means its programming is overwhelmingly slanted towards commercial criteria, rather than public interest concerns that can help further democracy (such as documentaries, investigative journalism, and educational programming). As a result most of the commercially skewed nature of the SABC’s funding, the prime-time television is dedicated to popular entertainment programmes, such as soapies, which attract large audiences and thus advertising. The commercial pressure can be subtler, with an increase in product placement in local programming, or more overt, such as the name of the reality competition series, ‘Tropika Island of Treasure’, which is named after a sponsor on a public broadcaster. Mention was also made of how easy it is for companies to be featured on SABC 2’s ‘Morning Live’ show, with advertising dressed up as programming. 54 AFRICAN MEDIA BAROMETER SOUTH AFRICA 2013