A number of broadcasting experts and observers have echoed President George Abela’s call for reform in the area, describing the Broadcasting Authority as “not independent enough” and in dire need of “radical revision”.
The two parties disagree on everything, and I’m practically certain that they’ll disagree on that too
There is, however, widespread scepticism about the possibility of any such reform taking place, with one commentator describing the concept of a de-politicised broadcasting authority as “a utopia for a small island state such as Malta”.
In a speech last Thursday while on a visit to the Broadcasting Authority to mark its 50th anniversary, President Abela raised a number of concerns.
He suggested that the existing system, which allows for partisan political TV and radio stations, might not, in actual fact, guarantee the balance and impartiality required by the Constitution.
Smaller political parties and other minority views, which did not have the financial clout of the two major political parties, could not compete on such an unequal playing field, the President argued.
He hinted at an incompatibility between the Constitution and the 1991 Broadcasting Act. Article 119 of the Constitution stipulates that the BA must ensure “due impartiality” in matters of political, industrial or public policy in television and sound broadcasts. It does not make any distinction between public and private broadcasters.
The 1991 Broadcasting Act, on the other hand, makes a distinction between the two. While it requires public broadcasters to present news with due impartiality, its Article 13 stipulates that in the case of private broadcasters, the BA can gauge impartiality by considering private broadcasters’ output “together as a whole”. The proviso effectively means that the BA can consider the bias in one political station as cancelling out the bias in its opposing station.
And the President also questioned the current system by which the BA is appointed.
Columnist and former Labour minister Lino Spiteri sympathised with President Abela’s concerns but put a damper on hopes for reform. “I appreciate where the President is coming from but I do not think any reform will happen,” he said.
Broadcasting reform, Mr Spiteri said, would require both major political parties to agree to stop their respective radio and television stations simultaneously. “The two parties disagree on everything, and I’m practically certain that they’ll disagree on that too.”
Libel and civil lawyer Joseph Zammit Maempel spoke in similar terms. “Theoretically, calls for reform make sense. In practice, however, it won’t work. Talk of reform is a utopia. Any reform would just lead to a thinly-veiled partisan board anyway. Even if BA members have no intention of voting along party interests, they will be perceived as doing so anyway.”
Dr Zammit Maempel, who is the Nationalist Party’s lead libel lawyer, was dismissive of suggestions that political television stations should be shut down. “Even if they were shut down,” he said, “private individuals would just open up their own stations and run them along partisan lines.”
According to Joseph Pirotta, who chaired the BA between 1993 and 2002, reform is simple in principle but somewhat trickier in practice. “Change would simply require an amendment to the law. But I don’t see the prospect of any change in the immediate future”.
Any change in attitude, Prof. Pirotta said, “would require changes in the way in which the BA is composed.”
Under the current system, the BA is made up of five members. The two major political parties effectively nominate two members each. The fifth member, the chairman, is appointed by the President on the Prime Minister’s nomination. Although the Prime Minister is required to consult with the Opposition Leader prior to submitting the nomination, consensus is not always reached.
The current chair of the Broadcasting Authority, Anthony Tabone, was appointed last March despite the opposition disagreeing with his nomination.
“There needs to be wider representation on the BA from broader civil society” Prof. Pirotta said. “It wouldn’t require a gargantuan board – instead of five members you could have seven, with representatives from wider society on the board.”
Historian and former BA member Dominic Fenech also feels that the BA’s current composition does not reflect Maltese society. The current system “dates back to the time when we only had state broadcasting. It is based on the premise that the two political parties represented in Parliament between them nearly cover all the concerns of the people” Prof. Fenech said.
“That this is not true is borne out by the fact that increasingly, articulate people agree with the party they voted for on some issues but not on others.”
Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Michael Briguglio called the current system “absurd”, pointing out that the BA could not continue to be “dominated exclusively by PN and PL representatives”.
But Dr Zammit Maempel remained sceptical of any such changes being effective. “What would be a viable alternative? In Malta, everyone is tainted by their political sympathies. This is the reality – if you don’t like it, you’ll have to lump it”.
The Labour Party’s spokesman for broadcasting Gino Cauchi skirted the question of closing down the partisan stations, placing the focus instead on the national broadcaster PBS. Should the public broadcaster improve its record of impartiality, so would the partisan stations, he argued.
“So far, the PBS is managed by political appointees in key positions,” he said.
The PL and the PBS have been at loggerheads in the recent past, with the former alleging that the national broadcaster is not impartial in its political reporting, quoting statistics which claim that the PBS’ news bulletins give disproportionate prominence to government officials.
The PBS has countered by saying that in the last four years, in which over 1,500 news bulletins had featured, it had never been found guilty of political imbalance against the PL.
When asked to comment on the President’s calls for broadcasting reform, government whip David Agius said that while there was need for reform, any such talk was superfluous as long as the Parliamentary Select Committee which was charged with discussing such reform remained frozen.
The PL had withdrawn its participation in the select committee in May 2010, following a voting controversy concerning the extension to the Delimara power station.
“The select committee is the ideal forum in which to discuss such reform,” Mr Agius said.
In a statement, the Nationalist Party echoed Mr Agius and called on the Leader of the Opposition to “reconsider his position and to return, in the national interest, to the tables of the select committee”.