Objectivity does not equal neutrality

October has started off with a bang and there have been interesting developments since I last wrote. We have the Peppi Azzopardi-Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando coaching course. Then there is the U-turn on public transport routes. Also, we have seen violent demonstrations in a number of cities protesting against what has been termed as “corporate greed and social inequality”. However, I will target the “coaching course” this time round: the Peppi Azzopardi-Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando issue.

No human being can be neutral. He must have a view one way or the other- Austin Sammut

I really can’t understand what all the fuss is about. I think a bit of background must come first. There is no doubt that Where’s Everybody? has a heavy chunk of PBS discussion programmes. Why? First I would say that it is healthy to change a schedule regularly, as is the case, with the introduction of new programmes, incorporating fresh themes, presenters and production houses. But does one change a winning horse? Both Bondì+ and (more so) Xarabank have proved to be such horses.

At the end of the day, besides the obvious attractiveness of editorial content, one must seek commercial viability and success. Viability comes from advertising and a successful editorial content, which attracts record audiences, brings the advertising and, hence, the income. The formula is as simple as that.

Obviously, programmes must be objectively and impartially presented and balanced in participation. This is what our law requires and this law must be enforced by our constitutional watchdog, the Broadcasting Authority. The present hullabaloo has to do with Mr Azzopardi’s association with Xarabank. Although I am on record as not always being in agreement with the level of this programme, often appealing to some base instincts in public participants, the level has improved over the years. The scoops are second to none and some of the guests have been unique.

Audiences are attracted to Xarabank for some apparent reason, I suppose (and the same goes for Bondì+, incidentally). Can anyone dispute that Mr Azzopardi has first-class credentials, above all in coming through to the people? That this discussion programme has been rated as the most popular, year after year, is not in doubt.

Does the fact that Mr Azzopardi uses his presentation skills to coach people change the validity of his programmes? Is he to be judged for the purposes of regulations or guidelines establishing political connections, which, it seems, nobody is responsible for enforcing, certainly not the Broadcasting Authority and, apparently, neither PBS, by the fact that he imparts his presentation skills to whoever?

And this brings me to what I think is a crucial point. I know of no law, be it constitutional or broadcasting, that binds a presenter to be neutral as opposed to objective. Objectivity does not equal neutrality. They are worlds apart. No human being can be neutral. He must have a view one way or the other. Failing this he can only be regarded as a neuter. Even a dog cannot be neutral. He might like one person and not another.

Should we ban presenters from voting in elections because obviously they will vote one way or the other unless they invalidate their vote?

On the other hand, being objective means treating your theme and your invitees equally, with equal opportunities and, above all, presenting all sides of an argument, particularly in matters of controversy.

As a professional media man, Mr Azzopardi has used his skill to coach Dr Pullicino Orlando when required just as, I am sure, he would coach anybody else. This was done privately and not publicly in the media. He was not sitting by his side in the famous aborted Alfred Sant press conference when the latter shied away.

I have no doubt that many PBS or Xandir Malta (as it was known) full-time officials have coached politicians from different parties and not least the Labour Party. Mr Azzopardi has provided his knowledge to the Labour Party. And it is worth pointing out here that it was unethical of the other members of the party’s ethics commission (or whatever) to come out the way they did in respect of who, after all, was a colleague on that commission. But, unfortunately, the famous Labour code of ethics has not been implemented or has been ignored and that can be seen from the quality of news bulletins and discussion programmes that we have to suffer.

I could go on and on. We should be concentrating on a restructuring of an anachronistic Broadcasting Authority on modern lines, giving it true representation from civil society, and a total overhaul of PBS, both in administration and control, rather than wasting time on an issue such as a simple “coaching course” delivered by a media consultant.