Taking the temperature of broadcasting

If a person is interested in studying the Maltese national development then there is no better way than to observe and study our management of broadcasting.

The area has provided a case study or a microcosmic laboratory reflecting our progress in collective self-management. Broadcasting Pluralism In Malta: Ten Years Later - A Qualitative Perspective (2004) by Marika Fsadni provides another account of this development.

The book is a sizeable collage of narratives about media development in Malta since 1991 as experienced by decision-makers involved in the original event, together with perspectives of major stakeholders since the event.

Using a qualitative methodology, the book offers the reader a freeze frame of the diverse threads that composed the event and its consequential aftermath.

To its credit, the book provides glimpses of the intentions behind, and reactions to, the pluralism initiative in Malta. The research brings together opinions offered by representatives of the TV and radio stations, production houses, communication agencies, media educators and the public. The author, although subscribing to a qualitative methodology, takes the stance of a distant observer reporting what she heard and was told. In the process, the report becomes a mosaic of opinions where all opinions expressed are taken at face value. Deprived of inter-text dialogue, the book is a collection of opinions that never reaches the level of a documentary.

Opinions are solicited about the issues of standards for programmes and broadcasting, the fiscal management of the sector and its contributions to the economy and the future of the field in the years ahead. Although there is no specific chapter about the Maltese cultural milieu within which the field operates, through the narratives offered one can get nuggets of gold about the different stakeholders and their agendas.

These "facts" become important parameters because they determine the constraints within which the development evolves. Agency is determined by existing internal and external structures, the availability of resources and the potential economies of scale obtainable.

On the basis of this work we need to go further if we are to learn anything from our own historical experience. We need to adopt a critical approach to our development of the media. We need to ask: Could things have developed otherwise? Are we content with the hijack of the media by political propaganda? How far do the current structures enforce and promote the current state of affairs?

Prior to the 1991 law of public broadcasting, Xandir Malta adopted, albeit not explicitly, a stance based on the national development theory of the media. In 1991, the government saw it fit to do away with such an approach and rightly changed the structures to promote a more liberal media approach. However, one needs to ask how is the current system different from a veiled developmental approach?

This text is complemented by other important pieces of symptomatic information. Statistics by the National Office of Statistics tell us of a gradual shift towards Maltese content. The Broadcasting Authority points to audience distributions. Economic trends hint at a growing audio-visual industry. Newspapers tell us of different modes of sourcing adopted by the TV stations. But what do we make of all this data? Unless we ask other questions, the symptoms will not lead us to a proper diagnostic.

Assessments stand or fall on the basis of implicit or explicit criteria used. Often one criterion of good broadcasting has been the measure of democratic decision-making in collective management.

Roumen Islam offers three criteria for the assessment of media within a society:

"Clearly as important providers of information, the media are more likely to promote better economic performance when they are more likely to satisfy three conditions: the media are independent, provide good-quality information and have a broad reach. That is, when they reduce the natural asymmetry of information... between those who govern and those whom they are supposed to serve and when they reduce information asymmetries between private agents. Such a media industry can increase the accountability of both businesses and government through monitoring and reputational penalties while also allowing consumers to make more informed decisions" (Islam, 2002. p. 1).

If we accept and take these three criteria at heart, then we need to ask ourselves questions not only about what happened over the past 10 years, but also about what could have happened. These questions need to be undertaken by all the major stakeholders convened in the picture by Ms Fsadni. For example, how independent are our media? Could they ever be so in Malta? This is both a fundamental and awkward question. In the same report mentioned above, James Wolfensohn states: "I have long argued that a free press is not a luxury. It is at the core of equitable development. The media can expose corruption. They can keep a check on public policy by throwing a spotlight on government action. They let people voice diverse opinions on governance and reform and help build public consensus to bring about change. Such media help markets work better - from small-scale vegetable trading in Indonesia to global foreign currency and capital markets in London and New York. They can facilitate trade, transmitting ideas and innovation across boundaries. We have also seen that the media are important for human development, bringing health and education information to remote villages in countries from Uganda to Nicaragua.

"But as experience has shown, the independence of the media can be fragile and easily compromised. All too often governments shackle the media. Sometimes control by powerful private interests restricts reporting. Low levels of literacy, human capital and technology can also limit the positive role the media can play. And we have seen the impact of irresponsible reporting and manipulation - witness the devastating effects of war propaganda in Rwanda. It is clear that to support development, media need the right environment - in terms of freedoms, capacities and checks and balances."

Broadcasting Pluralism In Malta: Ten Years Later - A Qualitative Perspective offers a number of reactions, both by the supply and demand counterparts, about the invasive presence of politics in the local media. Obviously a totally independent media does not exist. For purposes of identification, each medium should have an editorial policy. But what about the exercise of ownership to the extent that a medium becomes part of a propaganda machinery? Is this inevitable in our context? Can something be done about it now? How credible are such media to the different segments of our population? Should both political parties be asked to think further about the issue especially in the light of this and other information offered to the general public?

Should we as media consumers start asking questions about the apparent media agenda? Given that the percentage of floating voters has increased (and seems likely to increase further), does it make sense for political parties to maintain their current media strategy? How can the national broadcasting service use this situation to position itself and its products?

Over the past 10 years the domination of the media by partisan politics has contributed to the erosion of discussion about the national identity. Items on the national agenda became ways of discriminating who supports the Labour Party or the Nationalist Party rather than what really makes us a unique nation as we join other nations on the world map.

Taking the second criterion, the public must query whether our local media taken as a whole provide good-quality information. This question is not limited to factual knowledge. Factual accuracy is a basic assumption that needs to be guaranteed by all providers.

Quality information requires that our publics are served with the best fare of information possible representing a variety of voices. A cursory glimpse of the print media and broadcasting media will have one ask whether the local media are largely safeguarding the powerful institutional interests rather than the citizens' interests.

Even if one were to acknowledge the local scene of partisan media, are political media offering a fair representation of their party's internal spectrum of ideas? How are the different voices within each party being represented?

In terms of good-quality information, I would further suggest that lack of content in our programming is not just an issue of low budgets (albeit that being an important consideration). It is also a reflection of a people who does not read. We are a people of individuals who can wear many hats, are satisfied with a generic picture of things and defend ourselves from unwanted change by claiming that certain findings do not have a bearing for us because Malta is too small. And, yet, our behaviour indicates that we are great imitators of a westernised ways of life! To make matters more complicated, we have adopted the attitude in local programming that every opinion by anybody and everybody is as good as any other and that all opinions are indistinguishable from facts!

The third criterion offered by Islam is reach. We could safely say that in toto our media have a very broad reach. But what does our broad reach tell us about broadcasting? How far has our media pluralism reinforced, rather than mitigated, our institutional divisiveness? Who is being served; is it the citizen or the institutions? Who purports to represent the citizen?

Phone-ins have been touted as an indication of greater democracy in the country. Yet, we have heard the content of many of these phone-ins. Often phone-ins resemble a crowd where everybody is crying for crutches to be able to reach the desired gift or reward. When phone-ins are about opinions and points-of-view these are analysed for party allegiances and dealt with accordingly. Our media look like a dialogue of the deaf... everybody wants to express themselves but who is listening? What changes are being implemented at a structural level because of the phone-ins?

As mentioned above, the data offered by the National Statistics Office points to the actual increase of the Maltese programming. But is it enough to say that 80 per cent of our media content is produced locally? Over the past 10 years what can be said about the merit or worth of such material? It is an established fact that the Maltese are more inclined to follow Maltese drama and loud discussions where people can blurt their opinions. But are our audiences becoming better equipped to appreciate, respect and analyse the effectiveness of civil society?

The development of broadcasting over the last 10 years has provided space for the creation of a small audio-visual industry. Several entrepreneurs have taken the plunge to set up shop on their own as evidenced by the emergence of local production houses. Is this a beneficial fragmentation of the market allowing a breathing space for new and innovative products? Are we to expect a new shakeout or is this the trend of things to come? More persons are now involved in the industry as producers outside the earlier established institutional model. The diverse sourcing-out models adopted by the industry gave rise to the new landscape and the attempt by several to look at the possibility of servicing a foreign market. But what are we to make of all of this? What has been the impact of the different out-sourcing models on the content of programming?

I have written elsewhere that the local media are a reflection of collective identity. Like other social agents we create artefacts in our own image. Does it surprise anyone that in our popular media products we often witness a black versus white frame of mind? Could we have televoting with five choices instead of two? Is this not a reflection of the way we discuss religiosity, sport and public affairs? What happens to independent thinkers who can see the nuances of monochromes?

What place have such persons had in our media over the last 10 years? Could the media have contributed differently over these years?

The broad reach of the local media is a telling device on its own!

One may look at the current situation and think that it can be solved through training. The study points in this direction. But this viewpoint is not realistic enough. The report actually fails to give importance to the structures and environment that impact on our media landscape. It is not enough to wish for bolder journalists without taking cognisance of the structures that mould the selection, recruiting, work ethos and expectations from these persons.

The other missing probe of the report concerns the Broadcasting Authority itself. How far has the Broadcasting Authority contributed to the current situation? Who is primarily being served by the Authority? Truly, the Authority has provided us with local regulation concerning minors and advertising. This was a very good step in the right direction. But one must also ask who is best served by the current constitution of the Authority? How far has the criterion of fair balance, as adopted by the Authority, contributed to the reinforcement of the prevailing institutional setting? Should we think of an Authority that is elected by and is accountable to civil society?

I do not want to sound pessimistic about the impact of media pluralism. Actually I am very positive about it and would like to see this milestone in our national development come to better fruition. However, the material collected by Ms Fsadni pushes us to probe even further.

My greatest fear is that unless we ask these types of questions, after 10 years of broadcasting pluralism we might come to the conclusion that the local media is just the mirror that reflects a soul-less nation!

Rev. Professor Chircop is director of the Centre for Communications Technology at the University of Malta. This article is based on a speech he delivered at the launch of the study by Ms Fsadni organised by the Broadcasting Authority.