Opposition media spokesman Evarist Bartolo yesterday proposed to Parliament a model public service broadcasting legislation suggesting the transition of PBS from state to public broadcasting.
Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Broadcasting Act (Amendment) Bill, Mr Bartolo proposed that the chairman of the board of directors of PBS be appointed by a two-thirds majority of Parliament, as was the case with the Ombudsman. The board would be appointed by consensus.
He suggested the setting up of a parliamentary committee under the chairmanship of Mr Speaker to propose changes to present legislation. Both sides would have equal representation on this committee, which would be responsible for appointing professional people with no political connections to the management board.
Members of the senior management and the news editor would be appointed on their own merit through a public examination.
Mr Bartolo said that Malta should not remain in the category of African and former communist states where broadcasting was still under state control.
Democracy could be strengthened if the two sides agreed on the changes he was proposing. He had agreed with the national broadcasting strategy but said it could only be effective if public broadcasting were freed from effective state control.
Earlier, Mr Bartolo reiterated his claim that PBS was closer to the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation than the BBC. The party in government controlled finances and appointments in PBS and this meant that structurally PBS was a state broadcaster. To become a public broadcaster, it needed changes, including legal ones.
There were fat cats who criticised him because they were getting contracts through programmes being farmed out. He was not interested in hysterical controversies. PBS needed to have a genuinely-independent editorial policy.
The two main political parties needed to agree to free PBS from political interference and control. Appealing for professionalism was not enough.
Gino Cauchi (PL) said that he agreed with Mr Bartolo's proposals, which emanated from the opposition's genuine wish that state broadcasting evolve into public broadcasting.
He said the Broadcasting Act was being amended every so often to include EU directives. But, he asked, why not have a substantial upheaval of the whole broadcasting legislation? Even if broadcasting was being discussed in the House select committee, he did not want it to be caught in the throes of other subjects.
Why was it that the House had never felt the need to have its own committee on broadcasting? After all, PBS was financed by the people.
Mr Cauchi said there were many things which were suspect at PBS. Who took decisions: the board of directors or the editorial board? In 2007 when the two boards were in disagreement, the chairman of the editorial board John Camilleri had resigned and described the state of affairs at PBS as "miserable". Two years had passed and nothing has changed.
All the members at the top echelons of PBS had an allegiance to the government that appointed them.
The PBS board of directors should not have any form of political interference. Alternatively there should be a board having representatives of both parties with a chairman agreed by both sides. This would be a step that would give back PBS the credibility it deserved.
PBS was a public broadcasting entity only on paper, siphoning off €1.6 million in public funds under the extended public service obligations to provide programmes which were not commercially viable. But PBS was dishing out thousands of euros from this fund to third parties to produce TV programmes, which could well be produced in-house.
In certain sectors, like drama, PBS was being given an advantage over other stations through this fund. He suggested that if such stations had financial constraints in putting up programmes, they should also partake of this fund.
Mr Cauchi said there was a complete lack of vision and planning at PBS, even in the issue of statements of intent which were often an element of contention between third parties. In such cases, PBS had decided to do nothing so as not to step on toes.
This was evident from programmes transmitted on TVM on Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoon - simply because two production houses wanted their programmes to be transmitted on the same day and at the same time.
Public broadcasting's editorial policy had to be impartial because it was financed through taxation. No one could do what one liked without being accountable to anyone, considering that a person with a doctorate had an exorbitant salary paid by the taxpayers. His duty was to be fair and not biased towards the government. Impartiality had to be ensured.
Mr Cauchi said that the government had restructured PBS to remove certain people. Changes were needed in the board of directors and the editorial board.
The Broadcasting Authority, as regulator, had admitted that the PL had been given less time than the government in the Budget press conference, but held that the Labour complaint was not justified. The BA had also admitted that news items broadcast by PBS on November 8 and 15 were not consistent with its editorial policy and justified the PL's claim, but it had added that a remedy was inappropriate.
Mr Cauchi said that the EU directive put pressure on the BA to see that news and current affairs programmes were not sponsored. He called on the BA not to use different yardsticks to favour one particular production house at the expense of another.
Concluding, he called on the government to reciprocate the constructive suggestions made by the opposition.
Another Labour MP, Owen Bonnici, said that the Maltese model of public broadcasting was the least conducive to democracy, because it was used as a state tool for manipulating knowledge.
There were two ways of transmitting information: the aggressive way, which reached a certain audience and served only a limited scope; and getting information over in a fine, seemingly-objective way, in the end not only telling a lie but also telling a lie about itself. The latter manner of subtle delivery was a matter of grave concern.
The 2008 election had been a case in point, when the most popular sectors in state broadcasting had started taking the PL's proposals and systematically destroying them. This should never have happened in a democratic state.
Dr Bonnici said the role of public broadcasting was to transmit the best possible fare in the country, not necessarily with an eye to the size of audience. PBS must be objective, but it was only in unfair competition with private stations, getting funds which they did not get.
There were important precepts that PBS was not heeding. It was failing to show adequate appreciation of the interests and tastes of the minorities. There seemed to be no concern at PBS for national identity, which could be seen and felt in the difference between local productions and foreign ones.
Over past years there had been enormous progress in local drama productions. But how was PBS helping more than other quarters to expand this sector?
There was a need to do much more in the artistic sector. It was disappointing to understand that no local company had availed itself of a tax break if they helped Maltese artistes with up to €18,600 a year.
Similarly, there had been only three entities availing themselves of the Film Fund since 2008. Dr Bonnici augured that there would be more such productions to benefit from such facilities.
He also spoke on the cancellation of the Musical Academy project, touted to be directed by Maestro Riccardo Muti with a budget of €200,000.
Dr Bonnici spoke extensively about people paying for packages to watch specific football programmes, only to see them go to other channels. The government should anticipate any development in this sector and take steps to have all matches broadcast through the internet. The Times had been a shining light along these lines with its "fantastic" website and its subsequent success story.
It was imperative for PBS to be shorn of vested interests. It had transmitted €3.5 millions' worth of advertising in one year, but had directly sold only 54 per cent of that amount. The rest had been sold by some 40 companies. If these were not vested interests, what was? How could anyone be sure that every production company was given the same weight in facilities for production, irrespective of how much it sold or did not?