On mediocre TV programmes

What a revelation the Broadcasting Authority's and the Commissioner for Children's reports made, in a section of the media, recently! They said that children's programmes on local television are mediocre. Indeed, a sublime scoop for television viewers in general.

It would be interesting to hear from both these two institutions what all this activity (including round table conferences, other studies and research work commissioned, etc.) is costing the nation. It appears that in this country it has become a habit to waste public funds in commissioning studies and hiring consultants to find out what is, or has already been, known for ages.

How long have we been saying this? How long have we been reading and writing about it? How long have we been spending public monies in commissioning studies and appointing experts to upgrade the quality of programming? Where is the news content of the findings in these reports?

The report seems to have put special emphasis on the lack of resources (though it did not specify the type of resources) and professionalism. Definitely, the lack of professionalism is the principal cause of poor programming.

I would add that the genuine determination (at the top) to improve matters has been lacking too. Money is not really the cause of poor TV programming. The remark made by Stephen Zerafa (a contributor to the reports) that by "simply throwing money at the problem will not necessarily raise standards and quality", is indeed most relevant.

Suffice to say that when public broadcasting was receiving a subsidy of some Lm2.5 million annually in public funds, managed revenue of another Lm2.5 million, and engaged a media expert, for years on end, to advise Government and the state TV and radio station, no improvement in the standards and quality of programming was registered.

Creativity is a very significant ingredient in quality programming. Admittedly, the public station did have a creative director, some time back. This notwithstanding, creativity never featured within the walls of the national station. The great minds behind the recent reforms at PBS chose to abolish the post, rather than fostering or enforcing it.

All studies undertaken on the poor standards of local broadcasting unfailingly put the blame for the unhappy situation on the lack of both financial and human resources.

This is far from the truth. The blame rests squarely on the inefficiency, incompetence and lack of enthusiasm and management (financial and otherwise) skills at the top. There is a school of thought that believes that blaming the mediocrity of the state station on the lack of resources is only an escape route to the deficiencies of those responsible.

The BA suggestion of setting up a Quality Children's Programming Commission is another indication of more inconclusive studies. It is yet another poor attempt by the BA to justify its existence by harping on more studies/commissions without bothering to guarantee positive results in undertaking such a process.

The BA still seems to be driven by the stale idea of 'focus groups' which in reality, and by local standards, usually boils down to a "chat among a small gathering of close friends". Generally, the selected members of the group are close associates of the organiser(s). If I remember correctly, this activity was common practice at the state-owned station.

Anyway, one does not need to recount stale and unsuccessful events of the past. The BA should learn and be guided by past events, rather then bury its head in the sand, and venture blindfolded into further unwarranted and costly exercises that, to date, have failed to pay dividends.

The reports contained a number of issues that make little sense, if any. I find the BA chief executive's suggestion of compelling private TV stations to transmit a minimum number of children's programmes most inappropriate.

Why should they? The public obligations for this sort of programming lies with the state-owned station which is responsible for public broadcasting services, and should remain so. In fact, the national station receives public funds for the purpose.

It should be left to the discretion of the owners of private stations to decide on the type of programmes to transmit. The BA's duty and obligation is to monitor closely and scrupulously transmissions to ensure that all programming fall within the terms and conditions of the licence granted, and in line with any guidelines the local authorities issue from time to time.

Needless to say, one would assume that these guidelines would include standards, including quality programming and children's safeguards from possible harmful content of the media, were children's programmes are concerned. Heavy penalties should be imposed in cases where standards and obligations are not met. This is the only way to foster discipline, and ensure a significant betterment of the current situation.

Again, why should there be a quality broadcasting fund for children's programming? Could the report be more specific on this matter? Would the national station have to contribute to this fund? Would this mean that the national station would have to sacrifice the current public funding it receives, and compete on a level playing field for funding with the rest of the stations? And why just children's programming? Is the BA happy with the quality of the rest of the programming, including the load of cheap advertising the public is being subjected to?

I wonder whether a feasibility study of the impact of this recommendation has been made. Prima facie, it seems that the biggest loser would be the national station, while the other stations would end up receiving, more or less, funds which they themselves would have contributed to anyway.

My simple answer to the whole issue appears to be vested in the BA's taking the initiative to commit itself to run training courses itself, initially, in the field of creative and quality programming. Earning a university degree in communications is definitely not the answer to quality programming. Professionalism is attained by good and sound hands-on training in both creativity and technique.

The BA is definitely the most suitable set-up to rope in fresh tutors from, say, the BBC and other public broadcasting and private stations from all over Europe, whether directly or through the assistance of the EBU.

It would be best not to consider including any local tutors whatsoever, at least in the first couple of years of the introduction of training courses. This would ensure that trainees would be receiving totally new concepts, and the latest in current programming techniques.

The training should be of a rather short duration to enable one to evaluate progress soonest. Courses could be planned in stages, and participants are to be subjected to formal tests at the end of each stage. Course planning and content would best be left to the foreign experts in the field.

To motivate and ensure the best possible interests/ results, participants in Stage 1 course, obtaining a minimum pass mark of, say, 65 per cent in the final test, would automatically be eligible to undergo a Stage 2 training course. Again, those obtaining, say, the first three places in the final test of Stage 2, with a pass mark in excess of, say, 85 per cent, will earn themselves a scholarship abroad of, say, a week's hands-on training, sponsored by the BA.

Funding the local courses should not be a problem. Half the cost can be put up by the BA itself. The remaining half is to be met by the TV/radio station and production houses according to a formula to be worked out, taking into account the size and ratings enjoyed by the various stations/production houses. In case of any shortfall government can make good for the balance.

One should also seek EU funding for such training.