Editorial

The latest chapter in the ongoing tragedy of errors at Public Broadcasting Services raises fears that the direction being taken can negatively affect the editorial independence of the national TV and radio stations.

It all started after the Labour Party requested the PBS editorial board to give it a remedy following the November 5 edition of Bondiplus. The editorial board, in agreement with the registered editor, conceded a two-minute slot at the beginning of the November 12 edition of the same programme.

However, the board of directors, without any consultation with the registered editor, who, it must be said, personally carries legal responsibility for what is broadcast by PBS, declared the decision of the same registered editor and the editorial board as null and void and asked the MLP to write directly to the registered editor. The registered editor informed the MLP she agreed with the decision of the editorial board (that she was party to it). The two-minute slot was thus broadcast.

Why did the board of directors interfere? It had acted differently about the technicalities of the procedure when Nationalist MP John Dalli wrote to the chairman of the editorial board asking him to stop Lou Bondì producing a programme on a particular subject claiming that Mr Bondì had a conflict of interest.

Moreover, is it the business of the board of directors to overrule the decisions of the editorial board in clearly editorial matters pertaining to the realm of impartiality and balance as demanded by the Constitution? The National Broadcasting Policy lays down that it is the duty of the chairman of the editorial board to meet the registered editor to attend to complaints by the Broadcasting Authority and third parties. The policy also stipulates that it is the duty of the editorial board chairman to communicate to the editor proactive guidelines and corrective measures.

Another very important principle is at stake: Editorial competence and independence. It was partly respected in this case but published statements show that on several occasions the board of directors contradicted the decisions of the registered editor. It reversed the decision of the editor and the editorial board that Bondiplus should neither discuss the controversy on the migration to Mater Dei Hospital nor Alfred Sant's answer to the budget speech. The board of directors also decided to include in the schedule programmes that were refused by the registered editor and the editorial board. To add insult to injury, the registered editor is prohibited from speaking to the press.

Even those who might disagree with the decisions of the editor would agree that the actions of the board of directors are an affront to legitimate editorial independence and competence. Perhaps this is happening because the PBS tradition has always been that the CEO doubled up as editor, so the culture of editorial independence has not taken root. It seems that the board of directors has not come to terms with the new reality as it has not come to terms with the existence of the editorial board.

Such an attitude puts the national broadcaster on a very slippery slope. Where will such interference stop? Will the news bulletins be the next victim following current affairs programmes? Interference in editorial decisions is characteristic of political media organisations or in unabashedly commercial ones. The public broadcaster should follow none of the perversities of such organisations. Its editorial content should be managed in line with the basic ethos of the station enshrined in the National Broadcasting Policy. Competence in this area lies only with the registered editor and the editorial board.