A deformed pluralism

I am not quite sure what Lilli Gruber, Socialist MEP, had in mind when she asked the European Commission to see that all political parties, minorities and civil society are given the opportunity to voice their opinions on all Maltese TV media. But I am sure that the anomalies of our TV setting are deforming our notion of pluralism.

The points raised or broadly hinted at by Ms Gruber in her parliamentary question included two ideas: first, that Maltese TV media present a restricted range of social and political views, and, second, that the state, political parties and the Church exercise a stranglehold on our radio and TV attention - the undercurrent of the question is that the stranglehold is also over our thinking.

There is a commonsense Maltese view, boosted by some statistics, that would appear to refute these charges. Ms Gruber stated that 69 per cent of Maltese viewing time between 7 p.m. and midnight is captured by PBS, Net and Super 1 TV. Yes, but these stations during these times are more often than not filled either with commercial pap or else with political propaganda so blatant as to repulse some voters as much as it attracts others. The thing about TV zapping is that it exposes people and political parties that whip up hatred with one audience and speak the language of moderation with another (something easier to get away with in newspapers and on radio).

Drawing on a wide social range of acquaintances, I have yet to meet anyone who does not claim to see through the propaganda they attribute to each TV station. Admittedly, each of these acquaintances also claims that there are many people "out there" who are duped by everything they hear; but I link this lack of faith in one's fellow Maltese to the same ingrained scepticism that incites Maltese to zap from one TV news bulletin channel to another, applying to the oracles they hear the exchange rate that they once applied to the Italian lira (off with three zeros and divide by three).

What about the statistics that undermine the idea that the range of views presented is restricted? These come from last year's annual report (Appendix 10) by the editorial board of PBS. They cover only the PBS TV news service (till August), but since the 8 p.m. bulletin attracts almost as many viewers as Net and Super 1 news put together, they are meaningful.

First, on the range of political views, the statistics say that Alternattiva Demokratika had almost twice as much news coverage (57 news items) as the Nationalist Party (31), although the Malta Labour Party had almost as many as both of them combined (82). The low PN coverage is admittedly made up for by very high coverage of government ministers and official news releases.

On the question of stranglehold, the statistics actually show that coverage of political parties went down, deliberately, last year, compared with 2004: AD down by 25 per cent, MLP down by 24 per cent, and the PN and the government combined down by 28.5 per cent (the report gives 27 per cent, but whoever is mistaken, it is inconsequential).

The statistics and the arguments behind them indicate something real: improvements can be made within the system and they are being made thanks to various efforts by dedicated individuals. However, the statistics and the arguments also indicate a system that generates a deformed idea of pluralism. The deformity is not necessarily the fault of individuals but of the rules they have to follow in our anomalous TV setting. Similarly, viewer scepticism and shrewd TV news zapping is of no help in this setting.

The problem with this argument, including the statistics, is that they are generated by a deformed idea of pluralism. And the deformation is being caused by our anomalous TV mediascape.

The first anomaly, that our political parties own TV stations, greatly strengthens the hand of the party leadership, which controls the station and thus face-time, over other members of the party. A pluralism of approach and opinion within political formations is therefore hidden, unlike in other European countries where such pluralism is more evident.

The second anomaly is that our broadcasting rules apply a notion of "balance" that sees it as secured by the content of one TV station balancing the output of the political rival. This notion of balance assumes two and only two views exist on a given subject; it excludes the possibility of collusion on certain issues by the owners. It is not really based on the idea of balance at all but rather of cancellation: one view cancels another.

The idea that pluralism might mean discussion and debate that accommodate different perspectives, rather than setting them out to cancel each other, is missing.

The most painful consequence of this deformity of pluralism is how it categorises the nation. The breakdown of news items by the PBS editorial board does not categorise according to topic or issue (say, Middle East crisis or irregular immigrants or schools). Rather, when the categories move beyond the generalities of "local" and "foreign" they specify who, rather than what issue, they covered: the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, etc. (Interestingly, they do not include coverage of the Church specifically, although they do include "Unions".)

The categories were used by the editorial board because the rules of the TV setting virtually require them to do so. How else to display "improvement" and "impartiality" if not by the criteria assumed by the rules, written and unwritten?

It seems to me that the large problem identified by the report - the pressure threatening to crush the very idea of "public" service under the weight of commercial considerations - is related to this deformed idea of pluralism, but that is another column I hope to come to soon.

Meanwhile, it cannot be over-emphasised that true pluralism exists not only when a wide range of views is represented, but also when our plural identities (as parents, workers, volunteers, etc.) are respected and not squeezed into one dominant perspective - party political support - that cancels out all others. If we cannot imagine a Malta in which party preference (if only for AD) does not dominate all our calculations and choices, this is because our dominant medium of news makes such a country, literally, unimaginable.