In the first few months after the election of 2008 there was an interesting exchange of correspondence between then Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and the then Leader of the Opposition – first Alfred Sant and then Joseph Muscat. The proposals put forward eventually became the agenda of a short-lived parliamentary committee which was tasked to strengthen our democracy by improving, among other things, our constitution.
In the UK, it is illegal for political parties to own broadcasting stations
On July 7, 2008, Muscat suggested that the board of directors and the editorial board of PBS would be made of an equal number of members from the political parties and a number of people nominated by civil society and approved by both parties, as well as a chairman approved in the same way.
The Prime Minister added that he was also prepared to discuss “better and more effective regulation of the stations owned by the political parties or even a revision of the role of political parties in the local media” as well as a reform of the Broadcasting Authority to end the dominance of the political parties in this institution.
I was not going to bring this subject up for discussion for two reasons. First of all, I believe that with the exception of people in the media and in politics, TV and radio consumers are mainly, if not only, interested in the programmes broadcast. Secondly, now that a gigantic spanner has been thrown in the works of the nascent discussion of constitutional reform, its progress is in doubt.
However, two commentaries made me change my mind. Lino Spiteri writing in this paper on March 24 tried to resurrect (it’s that time of year!) an idea that had been dead and buried for years on end. The proposal to hive off news bulletins and current affairs programmes from PBS will only succeed in shrivelling it into a eunuch deprived of what is essential for a public broadcasting station.
The second commentary that made me have a change of heart was the article Kevin Aquilina penned in The Times of March 27, which raised a number of important points meriting a mature discussion. Unfortunately, the title of the article (whoever chose it) – ‘The minister’s puppet’ – was gratuitously and unfairly insulting to many who dedicated their time, experience and energy to the top positions at PBS Ltd. These included, along the years, three chairmen of the Broadcasting Authority and at least three members of the board of the same Authority.
In the light of the above, the debate about the local broadcasting mediascape should go beyond a discussion of the role of PBS Ltd to include the role of political parties in broadcasting and the Broadcasting Authority.
The ownership of radio and television stations by political parties is undoubtedly a distinctive characteristic of our mediascape. Such ownership goes beyond the strong presence that the political establishment has always had in the media in Mediterranean countries.
Italy, for example, developed the system of lottizzazione, whereby the public broadcasting sector was divided between the main political parties each controlling different channels of RAI. Without a doubt, this system served the interests of the political parties but not necessarily civil society or ordinary citizens.
On the other hand, in the UK, it is illegal for political parties to own broadcasting stations, while in Germany, parties can own shares in broadcasting organisations as long as their shareholding does not enable them to influence content. The Netherlands, however, developed the system of pillarisation that enabled political parties, churches, unions and others to form clubs that were then assigned air time on the public service broadcasting channels.
While in many countries broadcasting pluralism was introduced because of commercial reasons, in Malta it was introduced for political reasons. The Nationalist Government promised pluralism and introduced it in 1991 as a reaction to the excesses of Xandir Malta of the 1980s.
Unfortunately and unwisely, the political parties turned their stations into cheap propaganda machines providing us with a ‘Paradise Lost’ scenario at 7.30pm and ‘Paradise Regained’ at 7.45pm. Gonzi, during a speech to the Fundazzjoni Tumas Fenech, said that “many times news [on a political station] was confused with propaganda, and facts intertwined with opinions.” The net benefi-ciary is TVM whose audience, particularly for its news bulletins, by far exceeds that of the political stations put together.
Should this distinctive feature of our mediascape remain one of its permanent features?
In a comment to The Times (December 2, 1998), Eddie Fenech Adami said the ownership of broadcasting stations by political parties should be a transitional phenomenon, adding that after a period of time, as the management of politics matured, the need for the parties to have their own stations would cease. Has this period of maturity been reached?
One possible way forward, not my favourite, could be that the TV stations of the political parties stop broadcasting and the country goes for the lottizzazione option adopted by the Italians, whereby one of PBS’s TV stations would have a pro-Labour stance and the other would have a Nationalist bias.
The closure of the stations of the political parties can be accompanied by a version of the Dutch method of pillarisation. The political parties will then be allotted time on TVM2.
Each would broadcast a daily 15-minute news commentary programme and would also produce one discussion/current affairs programme every week.
The financing of these programmes could be any one of the financing models proposed in the National Broadcasting Policy. Arrangements about the editorial control of the content would have to be arrived at.
If none of these two options is adopted, then the onus will be on the Broadcasting Authority to rein in the excesses of these stations. I am not saying the authority should not take into consideration the fact that the politically-owned stations do not have a mission and a particular point of view to communicate.
I do not think these stations should be treated or regulated exactly in the same way that public service organisations are regulated.
The Authority should allow a bias but should not allow the stations to get away with almost murder. If the authority succeeds in duly and effectively regulating these stations, the mosaic of Malta’s mediascape could be enriched.
Will the aspirations currently expressed by many about the improvement of our mediascape ever become a reality?
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt