‘More diversity in Italy than in Malta’

There was more diversity in broadcasting in Italy under Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, despite his control over the media, that in Malta, Labour MP Leo Brincat said yesterday.

While there were three state TV stations in Italy to cater for the whole political spectrum, Malta has only one state-controlled station, which was generally subject to spin doctoring by the party in government.

Public broadcasting had always been a victim of politics. Pluralism did not manage to restrict such a phenomenon at the expense of viewers. PBS did not reduce reporting with a political slant. In fact, it was definitely not leading by example because One (the Labour Party’s TV station) had managed to cut down on this kind of reporting.

Even though the Broadcasting Authority had lately made progress, it had not taken safeguards against the various political manifestations by the person in charge of TVM newsroom. He said the position was exacerbated because it contained former NET TV employees led by a chief executive who had been pivotal in the Nationalist Party’s electoral campaign.

Moreover, the fact that salaries were being farmed out of PBS meant that more possibilities for suspicions were being sown.

In analysing the contents of news broadcasts, one could note that they were almost meticulously following the editorial schedule of the PN’s newspaper In-Nazzjon and its website Maltarightnow.com.

A recent Bondi+ poll indicated that over 90 per cent of respondents answered in favour of having Dr Gonzi elected for another term. Mr Brincat said this could only mean one of two things: either that citizens no longer had any trust in PBS or that such polls were being doctored, in the same way as news broadcasts were.

The opposition had, on many occasions, suggested that public broadcasting should be in the hands of professionals preferably under the aegis of the President.

Referring to private productions, Mr Brincat said other production houses were annoyed with Where’s Everybody’s monopolistic attitude.

The last broadcasting restructuring saw the introduction of an editorial board. However, this did not work as it was supposed to. Its members were removed with every change in government. PBS also employed various technical consultants with high salaries, including an IT consultant at €60 an hour, a technical consultant at €23.60 an hour and even a designer who was being paid a monthly salary amounting to €3,000. He said that there was the need for more clarification with regard to the actual input of these consultants.

Many more producers were finding difficulties with their proposals for new programmes. In fact, new schedules were being dominated by the same individuals. The PBS Board of Directors should wake up from its self-imposed slumber and stop supporting biased presenters.

PBS was not serving the need for open discussions. A case in point was Dissett, a TV programme that is aired in a late slot during the same time that football matches were broadcast on other stations. The only reason for this was that this programme offered a free discussion without any restrictions. On the other hand, the quality of Where’s Everybody’s Xarabank had gone down to abysmal levels – a populist circus appealing to the Maltese society’s lowest instincts. Citizens expected the government to loosen its grip over broadcasting more so that now an electoral campaign was looming. If PBS was not going to be restructured in order to represent the whole spectrum of society, then this station would never be a national one, no matter how many viewers decided to follow it.

The current situation was somewhat similar to cannibalism with persons carrying out three simultaneous roles: that of putting government at the forefront, being broadcasters and consulting the government itself. This conflict of interest was removing any potential from high-quality programmes. Political bias was also present in breakfast shows. The people wanted a level playing field, where ministers and shadow ministers were given enough news coverage. Broadcasting services had to be nearer to citizens and the situation could not go forward where certain individuals like Natalino Fenech remained untouchable, Mr Brincat said.