Maltese and broadcasters

I would like to sincerely thank Broadcasting Authority CEO Simon Manicolo for his reply and for justifying my comments in his June 27 letter.

It is heartening to learn that the authority, with all its limitations, takes action and it is good to read all he said about legal notices, appointing of experts and more. If only we could see tangible results.

It is not just me who thinks things are going from bad to worse, consultants and all; this was confirmed on June 26 by a contributor - an authority on the Maltese language - of a programme on RTK on Maltese ably presented by Charles Coleiro and Olvin Vella.

When asked, he didn't beat about the bush, but declared that on his return to our island, after being away for a few years, he could only say that things were worse than they were before he left.

It is not only the misuse of the language that is disastrous. What must be done is to grab the bull by the horns and have some responsible body decide who is suitable to be a broadcaster and who isn't. Being a friend or relative of somebody with authority is not good enough.

What surprises me most is that, out of over 400,000 people, we have to choose those who have the most horrible and unacceptable voices - and looks, in many cases. Going back to the golden times of Rediffusion, we had people like Charles Arrigo, Victor Aquilina, Mike Lanzon, Mary Grech and so on, who graced the airwaves. They were so professional and presentable. They lacked nothing and left nothing to be desired.

However, since broadcasting fell into the hands of the Maltese, the tables were turned and all sorts of - I almost said rubbish - things have been heard and seen. The more stations open, the more gaffes we have. Becoming a broadcaster, or anything else for that matter, is not just about taking a fancy to something. I would give anything to fly a plane, but who will be so daft as to allow me in spite of all my wishing and enthusiasm?

One has to know one's own abilities and limitations and, if not, these should be shown by those responsible for making the selection.

First things first: when choosing a broadcaster a good, pleasant, clear voice and diction, together with appearance and personality - especially for TV - are the most important basic qualities.

It is also an important asset to have some knowledge of other languages too - pronouncing foreign names decently and correctly is important. Saying Camilla Parker 'Bowels' instead of Bowles, or '10 cents' instead of IOC, is not acceptable.

We should not be content with just the basics. The better the broadcasters, the better broadcasting becomes and the better the nation will be. It is a known fact that people are influenced by what they see and hear on TV and radio.

If things are not changed radically, then issuing legal notices, employing consultants airing views in the press and on air and so on, will serve no purpose.

This is serious and it should be taken seriously by the authorities concerned. People are paying handsomely and they deserve to be treated accordingly, not like dirt.