Editorial

It is disheartening that a study on children's programmes commissioned by the Broadcasting Authority in 2000 concluded that productions in Malta were consistently of a low quality and were mainly used as fillers while private stations used them as a source of revenue through never-ending advertisements and sponsorships.

Children's programmes once again got another drubbing in the latest report by Ernst and Young for the Media Desk within the EU Affairs Directorate of the Culture Ministry.

This negative portrayal of locally produced TV programmes for children and the concerns expressed by the Council of Children comes as no surprise. Yet, one cannot help asking: Why should it be so?

TV should be a marvellous and effective tool to entertain, promote culture and raise educational standards. Its importance in influencing the upcoming generation cannot be underrated.

We should be concerned that more and more viewing time on TV is being sacrificed by the ever-increasing quantity and intensity of advertising of largely unnecessary and artificially contrived needs. Children who are still immature and gullible should be spared this aggressive marketing.

Many viewers are also distressed by the manner in which children are being exploited. There have been times when they were invited to debate, even with discourtesy and arrogance, what is obviously adult fare. On other occasions they were presented on TV shows in situations that are definitely unsuitable and unbecoming. Are these the role models we want to present our children?

The situation seems serious enough for the chief executive of the Broadcasting Authority, Kevin Aquilina, to propose a Children's Broadcasting Act whose objectives would in turn be monitored by a Quality Children's Programming Commission that would include three panels of experts.

One wonders, however, whether this is the only way forward. One has to be careful not to have a top heavy bureaucracy. What should happen first is that existing institutions take all necessary action to rectify the situation.

Spokesmen for the Council of Children sustain that the Broadcasting Authority already has clear programme guidelines for the producers of children's programmes. Are they being enforced? And, if so, to what extent?

The latest study by the Culture Ministry's Media Desk was apparently intended to try to devise a strategy in order to overcome obstacles hindering plans to tap into EU funds.

Undoubtedly, there is a need for a well-structured training programme to groom and train TV broadcasters and producers effectively. Unless a feasible project is proposed that will ensure standards and avoid the nepotism, incompetence and waste that plagues our small partisan environment there will not be much hope to best utilise such EU funds.

Meanwhile, it should be taken for granted that PBS lead by example. More importantly, the Broadcasting Authority should live up to its brief and discipline those programmes that fail to meet at least the minimum standards and obligations.

We must bear in mind that what is in the children's interest and what interests children are not always synonymous. For better or for worse, TV has a powerful impact on their psychological development and the authorities are in duty bound to fulfil their grave responsibilities.

It is long overdue that instead of drowning us with reports and studies, they start to get their act together.