Editorial

People need to be reminded that pluralism in broadcasting would not have been considered necessary in Malta had it not been for the unscrupulous command of the airwaves exercised by Dom Mintoff's government and the political decision taken by the public service television station at the time to airbrush Eddie Fenech Adami's name out of existence. Other blatant incidents included the broadcast of a post-election slogan - Bongu Malta Socjalista!

To that threat to democracy via the broadcasting system, the Broadcasting Authority of the day paid little or no heed. The Nationalist Party never forgot that threat. Pluralism in broadcasting was therefore high on its agenda when it was returned to power in 1987. Alas, it erred by eventually offering broadcasting licences to the two main political parties and to the Church - all the rest had to compete for the airwaves.

Are the days of pluralism numbered? Certainly not. Should the days of pluralism be numbered? This is a different matter altogether and the issue was raised, albeit obliquely, at a seminar in which the Broadcasting Authority presented findings of a survey on pluralism 10 years after this was introduced.

BA chairman Joseph Said Pullicino aired the view that television stations owned by political parties had been turned into what he called "propaganda machines". He also said that the relevance of television in future would depend on the quality of news bulletins and current affairs programmes. There is some truth in both opinions but by no means the whole truth.

There is no doubt that politically-owned TV and radio stations slant their news and current affairs programmes in a certain way. There is as little doubt that the number of floating viewers/listeners has not increased sufficiently to exert pressure on stations to amend their ways.

The future of level-headed broadcasting will ultimately depend on these. If they desert the station of their political choice because they can no longer stand its "propaganda" all will be very well. Those running political stations must stop believing that listeners/viewers can be served political trash without some form of reaction; erstwhile supporters abandoning their station of political choice, say, for the public service station.

The main problem is the public service station itself. It is this unit that has to set the standard, to behave, that is, broadcast, in a manner so competitive it will force change on its political competitors. PBS has so far shown little sign of being able to do this.

But the BA will still need to supervise more closely and strongly the politically-owned stations so that these do not descend into the propaganda pit. The authority may have to be strengthened, probably re-invented, to prevent this happening.

The remit of political stations, their duties and their obligations to a national audience also needs revisiting. As do the authority and constitution of the Broadcasting Authority, whose function should be extended to ensure that partiality by politically-owned TV stations in their news bulletins and current affairs programmes is open to redress. In this regard, the authority must learn to put audience before political party.