Johannesburg, South Africa - South Africa's press enjoy more freedom now than any other period in its history, but lately attacks on the media by politicians, claiming bias, poor quality and demanding to be exempted from scrutiny have become deafening. The former deputy president Jacob Zuma, sacked for alleged corruption, blamed the media in part for his troubles.

Politicians are convinced that the media are obsessed with celebrity, gossip and political divisions while being blind to what matters most -- policy issues. But this is certainly not true.

Perhaps the former Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll's view of American journalism applies to South Africa also: "The very best public-service journalism is probably as good it's ever been, maybe better, but it's being done by fewer and fewer papers (and journalists)".

However, the public broadcaster, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), appears to be taking criticisms by politicians to heart. It often appears in awe of government. In a case in point, a two-person internal investigation into allegations that television editors censored a broadcast where Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka was booed by an audience, was told by a senior editorial staff member that SABC journalists are under the impression that their editors expected to run only pro-government stories. In June 2006, The Sowetan newspaper reported that certain political commentators - including this correspondent - were blacklisted by senior SABC managers because of their political views. The broadcaster has launched an investigation into the claims, but its credibility has been seriously damaged.

Local journalists are currently lobbying lawmakers to ensure print and electronic media are exempted from provisions in a new bill before parliament which would allow a statutory Film and Publications Board to review their content. As it stands the bill requires the board to review content for "descriptions or representations of or amounting to: sexual material; propaganda for war; incitement to imminent violence, or the advocacy of hatred based on any identifiable group characteristic". For starters, the concepts of "propaganda for war" and "incitement to imminent violence" are not only vague and broad, but quite dangerous to press freedom. The practical effects of this bill are that the media will be held prisoner by the subjective values of those in the Film and Publications Board. Furthermore, it amounts to pre-publication censorship, with some media organisations likely to try to avoid covering these subjects to avoid the risk of prosecution.

But freedom of the press is often seen only as freedom from onerous political interference, but the press is also threatened by market, ownership, and interest group pressures. Growing concentration of media ownership is a threat to media independence. Pressures to increase the bottom line, competition for audiences, resources and advertising are seriously hurting the quality of news coverage. In fact, the pressure to remain profitable can result in increasing self-censorship as media focus concentrate increasingly on urban, consumer -orientated issues, with a declining concern for the issues of poor, rural citizens - who often cannot pay.

Similarly, there is a worrying trend where those with economic and political power are increasingly resorting to the courts to either stop journalists from reporting an issue or to sue them afterwards. Indeed, threats to press freedom do not only come from politicians and state bodies, but also from powerful companies and individuals. The threat of multimillion-rand lawsuits against journalists or media organisations is just as potentially crippling to press freedom. Incidents where journalists are threatened with physical harm are not widespread in South Africa, although there is a rising tide of official harassment of journalists in rural towns and communities. For example, many local government officials and business leaders are hostile towards small town community newspapers and journalists, often withholding information, and sometimes even boycotting them.

International tribunals and increasingly national ones are clear that politicians and governments may be subject to greater criticism than ordinary private individuals. An independent judiciary can help protect individuals from media abuse and victimisation, and also help journalists against arbitrary actions by the state. But self-regulation remains the best route to ensure fairness, respect for privacy and to prevent maliciousness. South Africa already has industry-wide councils, such as the Press Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Furthermore, civil society watchdogs, such as the Freedom Of Expression Institute and the Media Institute of Southern Africa, can reinforce the work of such councils.