Why issues of power and control matter

The current debate about Public Broadcasting Services is worrying. There was a time in the past when the key problem with the state-owned stations was legitimately deemed to be the pressure from political power-holders, particularly their influence on news content. Now the focus has tactfully shifted. The present state of affairs is blamed on the structure and the staff.

By laying off most of the media workers and through another reorganisation of the PBS structure we are being told we would be taking the bull by the horns in a heroic effort that will save millions of liri for the national coffers. Nevertheless, broadcasting will not be redeemed and administering a mere placebo will definitely not cure its maladies.

PBS's key problem remains its lack of autonomy from state control. While politicians pay lip service to the need to have a feasible and flourishing public broadcasting service, they are reluctant to release their grip. To date it is under direct government control, with a minister retaining the right to hire and fire the people at the helm. As a result we have seen a succession of chairmen, board of directors and chief executives.

A serious lack of continuity followed each change of ministerial portfolio, which made it virtually impossible to establish clear long-term targets and ensure the accountability of political appointees.

All this partly explains the muddle the station is in today. As a result we have a top heavy and over-manned structure that is not sufficiently elastic to transform itself and cope with organisational contingencies and cutthroat competition. Furthermore, audiences are repeatedly invited to look at PBS as a propagandistic mouthpiece for the governing party. Paradoxically, both sides decry PBS when they sit on the opposition benches but neither took steps to remove PBS from direct control by the Executive.

Trapped in a polarised vortex, PBS also has contractual obligations that enforce a fetish for a synthetic balance. For instance, news resources and routines are overwhelmingly centred on stories engineered by the state or political parties. The following table taken from data gathered until 2001 clearly illustrates how political content prevailed, at times exceeding more than half of the PBS news bulletins.

The saga also includes at least four separate reports on the state of PBS (Grima - 1996, Mallia - 1997, Centre for Communication Technology - 1999 and Vella Bonnici et al - July 16, 2001). The reports in themselves attest to a political awareness that there is a need to reform. However, awareness necessitates implementation. Under direct government control, no matter the amount of goodwill, bona fide change is unlikely.

We need to look at European models of public services to see how media professionals gained and strove to safeguard their independence. Despite sporadic setbacks, elsewhere broadcasters did move from deferential journalism towards an adversarial line of questioning, from formal and orchestrated topics to a wider spectrum of sources. Slowly, but steadily, they are generally less likely to reproduce organisational discourses to use a language that is more personalised and audience-driven. Furthermore, public broadcasters, as opposed to market-driven formats, focus on the needs of individuals without alienating or detaching citizens from macro socio-political processes.

The Maltese political class could benefit from this. Within the community, party exponents who are in touch with constituents must be feeling that the present state of affairs in broadcasting is likely to be counterproductive. In my own research I met people who were highly critical not merely of obtrusive partisan propaganda in news. Some were also conscious of subtle spin efforts. This traversed all social groups, including those who were solidly grounded in partisan terrains.

It appears that, through their exposure to partisan onslaughts, more people are now looking at their own party through the eyes of the others. The repetition ad nauseam of political messages and attempts to push political messages down viewers' throats often prompts them to "switch-off" mentally. Hence, we have the highest electoral turnout in the world and yet in the shelter of their homes, where families zap from one television station to another, they expressed very critical and negative outlooks on "politics"; a term that was used interchangeably with the words "polarisation" and "partisanship". People long to be treated as thinking beings.

Once upon a time, preceding pluralism, as they flicked through the increased influx of Italian stations, people could only watch one local station, il-Malti. Now, despite the other local contenders, il-Malti is as necessary as ever. While the information flow often depicts events and occurrences that often seem emanating from two different planets, audiences often look at PBS as the only structure that linked the two worldviews together. However, they often described it as a wobbly bridge that gave too much priority to parties and most perceive it as promoter of the government of the day. Respondents desired a wider coverage. There was a demand for programmes that give a truly representative and inclusive view of the whole of civic society. Nonetheless, a sturdy bridge is unlikely as long as the political architects of the present structures do not let go.

The media workers at PBS are hardened being under incessant fire. It is a real pity that many talented and experienced men and women are now going to be decimated. Under a truly autonomous structure, flak from both political sides should be considered a sign of strength not a symptom of weakness. I believe that the debate on PBS should shift back to issues of power and control. Any half-baked restructuring that does not lead to autonomy may imply that Public Service Broadcasting is merely slowly being demolished to either strengthen the existing private stations or open the way for the establishment of new set-ups.

The author is at present working on her PhD in the Media and Communications Department, at Goldsmiths College, University of London.