A personal explanation

Your editorial (March 27) about the Broadcasting Authority should not go unchallenged. My main reason for this contribution to your paper is to provide your readers with an explanation, at least as I see it, regarding the rights and obligations of the much maligned and often misunderstood Broadcasting Authority.

I am a member of the Authority, having been appointed on the board of this constitutional organisation in April 2001 after a long career in the regulation of radio and television broadcasting. At the time, my appointment was criticised as "obscene" by Alfred Sant, the leader of the opposition, on the pretext that having occupied the position of the Authority's chief executive, I should not have accepted the appointment of board member.

I had replied publicly to that criticism stating that, once appointed, it was my duty to act exclusively in the public interest and not in the interests of any political party with which, as an individual, I may happen to be in sympathy. Since then, I have always tried to act in accordance with my firmly-held principles which, inevitably, brought me in conflict with one or other shade of political opinion. The latest situation is a typical example and although your editorial called "...on those responsible... to step down", I most certainly do not agree for the following reasons:

¤ The Authority operates under the terms of the Constitution and the Broadcasting Act and no degree of misinformed indignation expressed against the Authority's decision to ensure balance and impartiality - particularly during the crucial pre-election period - will alter that fact.

¤ PBS Ltd shares this responsibility and, irrespective of their source of programme supply, has the duty to offer the public an adequate diversity of political views in current affairs programming.

¤ The insinuation that the Authority acted under some form of pressure is unjust and untrue.

¤ In my opinion, the operation of a strictly confrontation formula, requiring more the skills of a boxing promoter than a current affairs producer, carries with it the clear implication that on no issue are there any other possibilities or points of compromise.

Again it is my personal opinion which, I am sure is shared by some members of the PBS management team, that the assumption that there must always be two sides, and two only, to every controversy had handicapped the development of a proper television technique for presenting political issues.

I believe that it is often more valuable to explore common ground, or the possibilities of presenting solutions, than always to polarise issues and to encourage divisions. Contrary to the belief of some producers that confrontation is essential for "good television", I am sure that many of the viewing public would often welcome and come to prefer a more reasonable and reasoned presentation.