‘Dr Fenech Adami said the fact that PN was about to have its own TV station

should eventually lead to the termination of the need felt by the parties to own

their own television stations. Ownership of television stations by the political

parties was thus a transitional phenomenon, Dr Fenech Adami said, adding

that after a period of time, as the management of politics matured, the need for

the parties to have their own stations would cease.’

(Said, I., The Times, 2.12.98, p7)

I'm sure that most do not remember these comments by former Prime Minister Dr Fenech Adami. Even I had totally forgotten about them. I rediscovered them when I was re-reading the fine dissertation by Beatrice Gatt (All her friends know her as Bibbo.) The dissertation titled “Television ownership in Malta: Democratic Implications” was part of her studies for MA in Mass Communication.

Why are the media silent?

The Prime Minister has tried to launch a discussion about the role of political parties in our broadcasting scenario. In his letter to Dr Joseph Muscat of July 7, Dr Gonzi wrote that he was ready to consider setting up better and more effective regulations for political stations. He then went further. He wrote that he was even ready to revise the role of political parties in the local media landscape! The Prime Minister showed courage and foresight but unfortunately the media, the bloggers and others did not do any follow-up discussion. Why are the media not interested in the future of our own media landscape?

Exploring new avenues

There is another question which is more basic: Have we, as a country, reached the state of maturity mentioned by Dr Fenech Adami and the courage showed by Prime Minister Gonzi?

I referred to this topic in my blog and criticised in several fora the way political party media are run. I think that Government’s decision way back in 1991 to give a radio frequency to the two main political parties and the Church was a good idea. Same could be said about the giving of TV frequencies. The country had, a few years before, gone through a long period of systematic and massive manipulation of state broadcasting. It was really a case of Dardir Malta not Xandir Malta!

Who does not remember;

  • the airing of “Run Rabbit Run” and “Bongu Malta Socjalista” even before there were any official indications of the results of the 1981 election?
  • The manipulation of the speech of the Pope to Prime Minister Mintoff before the same election?
  • The censorship of even the name of the Leader of the Opposition?

These are just three examples of the hundreds that one can give. The granting of a broadcasting licence to the political parties (even Alternattiva ran a radio station for quite some time) guaranteed a voice to the political players. It is very unfortunate that for several reasons the stations did not rise up to the occasion and debased themselves into mere propaganda outlets than real broadcasting stations. There were efforts to steer away from this pitfall but in it they eventually fell. This was not just an ethical mistake. It was a strategic one as well since they just became the home of the converted.

The political environment is now different from that of the Early Nineties. I think that it is high time to explore different avenues. Instead of direct party ownership of different political stations one can explore:

  • an experiment in line with the Dutch model of broadcasting. We could have a second public service channel focussing on discussions, current affairs, information etc. The different political parties and other institutions will be responsible for some of the programmes that will be broadcast.
  • A TV station run by a company owned by both political parties. Each party will be responsible, for example, for the production of one news bulletin every day and a couple of programmes. The parties will then use their production facilities to produce drama, children’s programmes, and other general interest programmes. In an opinion piece I had written in The Times I had called this proposal Dream TV. Probably it is, and it will certainly remain so.

These are just two ideas. Others would surely develop if the subject is objectively and realistically discussed.

A most definitive no-no

I watched Dr Reno Borg during a discussion on One TV. Dr Borg had harsh words about the way the PBS newsroom is (according to him) run and about the alleged peccadilloes (broadcasting-wise, that is) of the independent producers who supply PBS with current affairs programmes.

His words reflect badly on PBS and the independent producers. But his words, if they are a correct assessment of the situation, would be tantamount to a condemnation of the Broadcasting Authority. “So what?”, one may ask “doesn’t Dr Borg have a right for his opinion?” He has. But there is a detail of some relevance which could somehow make one give a different answer to that question. Dr Reno Borg is a member of the Broadcasting Authority. Should he publicly speak in such a way that some may conclude that the Authority is incompetent and is not doing its duty well?

Besides, how can Dr Borg speak the way he spoke, and then, as member of the Broadcasting Authority pretend to be perceived as an impartial judge whenever the PBS is summoned for judgement before the BA?

Perhaps this should not trouble anyone unduly since, as a gentleman, Dr Borg would surely refrain from sitting on any PBS case.

Dr Muscat and divorce

I read the piece in The Sunday Times (August 3, 2008 page 120) entitled: Muscat prepared to present Divorce Bill. If Dr Muscat, the Leader of the Labour Party, was well quoted I think that his position smacks of political opportunism more than of anything else. I will wait a couple of days to see whether there will be any correction or clarification. If not I will take the article as a fair assessment of what he said and comment about it.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.