Broadcasting: A step in the right direction

It is a breath of fresh air to see that both sides of the political spectrum are finally turning their attention to the dire state of broadcasting in this country.

Education and Culture Minister Dolores Cristina has called for a revision of the National Broadcasting Policy of 2004 and Labour leader Joseph Muscat has set up a commission to draw up a code of ethics for his party's media. Clearly both sides are in agreement that the current situation is untenable.

Both moves are potentially a step in the right direction. However, will the entire broadcasting scenario be under scrutiny or are these exercises going to be limited only to particular aspects of the problem?

At the top we have the regulator, the Malta Broadcasting Authority (MBA). In its current formation, with representatives of the two main political parties being the only members of the board, it is simply not in a position to carry out its function. The MBA clearly lays out its policy that the political party-owned stations balance each other out over time, rather than being required to present factual, unbiased, ethical programming. We have seen to what levels this policy enables journalists to stoop.

Problems at PBS, the state broadcaster are notorious. Successive administrations have commissioned reports and attempts have been made at restructuring. However, our public service broadcaster, remains wholly government owned and political interference by whoever happens to be in power is legendary. Recently, we saw a head-on clash between the main board and the editorial board over content. Have we not matured enough politically to ensure that this organisation be totally autonomous?

As for the politically-owned stations, would squeaky clean codes of ethics on both sides make a difference? Yes, codes of ethics are a brave step in the right direction. If nothing else, journalists can be held accountable. But let us not forget the MBA's effort to address this issue with its Proposed Code on News and Current Affairs of 1999. Nothing changed.

Analysis of the audiovisual product is extremely subjective. Any code of ethics will leave several loopholes. The problem lies in ownership which enables the control of information and the shaping of public opinion.

If the politically-owned stations existed in a much vaster pool of televisual products, then their influence would be watered down considerably. However, the current situation does not allow for truly commercial entrants. While commercial imperatives and thus power in broadcasting have to be considered extremely cautiously, a healthy regulatory system where they are kept in check and also required to pick up part of the public service broadcasting remit is attainable.

This is not to say that politically- controlled media have to be silenced completely. Our political parties already have their own newspapers, radio stations and internet portals. Their televisual presence can be re-regulated and reduced.

It can be guaranteed by creating a single dedicated political channel, where the airtime is split three ways: the two main power blocks and other voices that desperately need to be heard in civil society.

We need broadcasting regulation in place to safeguard the interests of the citizen. Unless it is brought in line with Council of Europe recommendations, we can never hope to have an informed citizenry capable of participating in a truly democratic process.

Ms Gatt holds an MA in Mass Communications Research from the University of Leicester.