For the second Sunday in a row, in the same red-top Sunday newspaper, a sad, sorry, sensationalist sh*tstory about the TV industry in South Africa which is cringe worthy in its inaccurate, 100% untrue, unresearched, and devoid of actual facts, trash tale.
Last Sunday the same newspaper had a bad (as in eye-poppingly shocking, uncritical, clueless and devoid of actual experts or containing nothing but spokespeople spin) story on MultiChoice not allowing the recording of content shown through DStv on other devices besides PVRs.
It was lame, pathetic journalism and an injustice to what should be an informed article to give real facts and insight.
This Sunday there is more sh*t coverage of yet another TV biz topic, with a total sensationalist sh*t stirrer which is devoid of truth and filled with breathless "reporting".
Now the newspaper has crap masquerading as news claiming that hours of cricket, rugby and soccer will "disappear" from South African television if the government's aim to ban all liquor advertising on television goes through - and that even sport like 2015's World Cup Rugby in England might become "too expensive" to broadcast on television in South Africa.
Bullsh*t.
Since you'll search in vain to find a single expert or insider of the international or local South African television business quoted, or anybody with actual TV knowledge asked or included in the article about how television, acquisitions and rights really work, let me give you the actual facts:
If a ban on liquor advertising on television comes into effect it will not affect sport on television. The sport you've been watching will still happen and be played, it will still be broadcast, and you will still be able to tune it to see it as you have before.
What came first? Sport being played or advertising and sponsorships? Sport was first, and whether advertising comes or goes, people will still play sports, people will remain interested in watching it, and whatever the logistics, price points and wrangling, it will be shown on television.
Did cricket disappear when Benson & Hedges cricket ended because cigarette and tobacco advertising were banned? No. New sponsors fill a void and companies not allowed to advertise on television find other viable marketing alternatives for their brands.
Keep in mind also that sport is the biggest driver of pay-TV.
Keep in mind also that most of the sport watched is already on pay-TV such as MultiChoice's DStv because its premium content tied up in multiple rights which are sold and acquired by places like SuperSport. Especially international sport rights. In contracts signed for multiple years into the future. Already.
Keep in mind also that pay-TV has to derive the bulk of its income from subscription fees; not advertising. If the advertising or specific sponsors diminish or disappear, it's all but guaranteed that new sponsors are found for those events, especially sport.
And as far as actual broadcasting is concerned, in pay-TV its the subscription income, not the advertising income, which is the consistent, primary income and which has to carry rights acquisitions. Advertising is a bonus.
Pay-TV will also not not bring viewers sport, irrespective of whether that sport has sponsorship or not or particular sponsorship. As a programming genre it's too big and valuable to exclude.
Public television will also not not bring viewers sport, irrespective of whether that sport has sponsorship or not - its in the mandate and broadcasting act and licensing conditions that a certain amount of sport and hours has to be shown.
To write total sh*t like saying the 2015 Rugby World Cup won't be shown in South Africa due to liquor and alcohol advertising and sponsorship being dropped, is totally irresponsible made-up bullsh*t.
It. Will. Never. Happen.