Broadcasting in Malta has been a hot issue ever since PBS came on the scene and, over the years, other TV and radio stations brought about de facto pluralism in the sector. Not that wired Rediffusion, when it was on its own with its Maltese and English channels did not stir controversy from time to time, but that was occasional.
Multiple broadcasting brought about much more variety of both quality and controversy. The Malta Broadcasting Authority, brought into being to ensure good programmes, yes, but essentially to see to it that political balance was maintained, gave a platform to the perennial controversies.
It was a matter of controversy itself. Some argued that it had to ensure balance within the same medium, even in a medium’s programme. Others held that balance was a more open issue, to be determined over a number of programmes. With the arrival of the media of the political parties, the notion of balance achieved its own dynamic.
It was incongruous to expect that a political medium would be balanced. That was a contradiction in terms. In time, balance was expected only from the stations of the publicly-owned and financed PBS Ltd.
Such a restriction placed controversy in a specified niche, but did not decrease it.
In recent years the Broadcasting Authority has been busy reviewing endless claims by the political parties of imbalance, particularly in the news and current affairs programmes. The tempo has been rising.
So much so that Nationalist Party spokespersons have been claiming that in this government’s first year of office they made as many complaints to the Broadcasting Authority as the former Labour Opposition had lodged over five years of the now defunct Gonzi government.
They remained silent when it was pointed out to them that they were omitting from saying how many of their complaints were upheld, which was nil, showing how much the complaints system can be abused of.
With the arrival of the media of the political parties, the notion of balance achieved its own dynamic
That is not to say that PBS news and current affairs programmes have been paragons of impartiality and objectivity. Under both the Labour administrations of the 1970s and 1980s and the Nationalist counterpart subsequently, news and current affairs programmes all too often resembled state broadcasting under a Soviet regime, a barefaced exercise in brainwashing.
The same thing cannot be said now when PBS is far more objective and impartial than it had been over the previous 40 years.
Nevertheless controversy still rules. The major example was mentioned already – the Nationalist propensity to lodge protests with the Broadcasting Authority in a thinly-veiled negative effort to sustain their charge that a dictatorship is in the making and the dissemination of free speech and ideas is under threat.
There are also other forms of controversies. For instance, very recently the Labour Party’s television and radio head of programmes accused the PBS CEO of somehow cheating by trying to poach Labour Party media persons, thereby weakening the PL.
The PBS CEO is a controversial figure. He is a well-known Nationalist, as well as a well-recognised media professional, hired by PBS in the last years of the Nationalist administration.
Under his tutelage, though certainly not under his sole responsibility, PBS broadcasting was biased to an astonishing degree. Yet, the CEO was retained when the Labour government took over. Some say that was because it would have been too expensive to break his fixed-term contract and pay him due compensation.
Whatever the reason, he stayed, and performed very much as a professional should.
If the Labour Party head of programmes is to be believed, that includes searching for and trying to recruit talent from the Labour stable. The charge, seen outside the heat of party stances, is ludicrous.
In a competitive pluralistic environment it is to be expected that heads of programmes should run after the best talent available.
If that is what the PBS CEO did, he was responding to market forces.
Paradoxically, if he had tried to recruit from the Nationalist Party stable he would have surely have been accused of trying to lace PBS with blue talent.
These are silly political games. If one were to assess poaching in a broad sense one would look at the human resources that moved from the Labour Party media and administration to join government departments who had to staff positions of trust.
Competition in broadcasting is far healthier than unnecessary controversy.
That is what media chiefs should be focusing on.