Editorial

Broadcasting has hit the national scene with a bang with the Prime Minister, the leader of the Labour Party and the Broadcasting Authority putting forward interesting views and/or suggestions.

A comparison between the statements of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour Party shows their very different mentalities and views about the subject. On July 7, the leader of the Labour Party, Joseph Muscat, wrote to the Prime Minister and, inter alia, asked for a change in how the members of the board of directors and the editorial board at PBS are chosen as well as a change in the composition of the same boards.

Dr Muscat wrote that the chairmen should be approved by both sides, that is, the government and the opposition, and that the political parties will have the same number of members. He also said that civil society should be represented but its representatives should be approved by the political parties. It seems that Dr Muscat believes that the political parties should dominate public service broadcasting. He also appears to be adopting a paternalistic and condescending attitude towards civil society because he wants to approve their representatives.

The Prime Minister's answer on the same day shows that his vision of broadcasting is much more innovative and forward-looking than Dr Muscat's. Lawrence Gonzi radicalised the agenda saying that he is ready to consider setting up better and more effective regulations for political stations. Then he dropped a bombshell. He is even ready to revise the role of political parties in the local media landscape. As if this were not enough he added that the government was ready to reform the Broadcasting Authority so as to end the dominance of political parties. Instead, he wanted to strengthen the role of media experts and civil society.

All this is music to The Times' ears as it has lobbied time and time again for the re-dimensioning of the role of political party media and to the end of the dominant role political parties play in the broadcasting watchdog. Dr Gonzi is right in saying that this is the way forward in broadcasting. Political parties should have less control on the air waves.

Within this context, the proposal of the Broadcasting Authority that individuals or companies can own up to six niche radio stations and three niche TV stations, besides the generalist radio and TV station and a teleshopping station that one can own at present, has greater significance. If the regulator has its way one can now own up to 12 different radio and TV stations. Quite a lot for such a small island!

The Times is not in principle against more stations but it is definitively against more stations owned by political parties and against more stations with a low level of quality broadcasting. Thus, the Broadcasting Authority's proposal that such niche stations cannot be news and current affairs houses and cannot broadcast any news, current affairs or discussions is unacceptable. Provided, of course, that they air good quality programmes, which may not always appeal to the masses.

The Broadcasting Authority's own Maltese Broadcast Consumer Profile has shown that "quite often consumers' rights to quality programme content is put on a side-stream and quite forgotten, resulting in mediocre programme content".

The Broadcasting Authority should concentrate on quality, not quantity.