Even if it may be accused of acting after the horse has bolted, the Broadcasting Authority ought to be lauded for launching two consultation documents, one on the correct use of the Maltese language and the other on the protection of minors. One hopes what is being proposed does go through and, more importantly, that the rules are enforced.

Better late than never, and it is hoped that similar initiatives will follow because there are a number of issues on which most TV and radio stations could do with guidelines and direction.

There are too many instances where the race for audiences and/or appeasing advertisers impinge on quality broadcasting and, at times, even amount to outright bad taste. When partisan politics then come into the equation, the airwaves can truly become too hot to handle.

So, in view of the landscape that emerged post-1991, when changes to the law introduced pluralism in broadcasting and the explosion of social media later led to so-called citizen journalism, a thorough review of the broadcasting scene would be in order. A good start would be to take a very close look at the broadcasting watchdog itself.

Three main aspects spring immediately to mind.

One, should the Broadcasting Authority continue to have a punitive role in the sense of fining defaulting stations or can some of those functions be transferred to the courts as, after all, is the case with the print media?

Two, does it still make sense to have the Broadcasting Authority “consider the general output of programmes provided by the various [private] broadcasting licensees and contractors, together as a whole”?

This was evidently intended to exempt the two channels belonging to the major political parties from having to preserve “due impartiality... in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and that broadcasting facilities and time are fairly apportioned between persons belonging to different political parties”.

Three, is it fair to retain the present manner of appointment for Broadcasting Authority members? The Constitution lays down that the members are appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister who consults with the Leader of the Opposition.

In reality, what happens is that the government suggests the chairman and the two parties represented in Parliament propose two names each. When challenged, the parties insist the members are their nominees not their representatives.

Given that all stations must submit their programme schedules to the broadcasting watchdog in advance, it means the parties, that each have their own station, are privy to what their competitors are planning. This practically means that the constitutional provision on the Broadcasting Authority’s composition is perpetuating a situation whereby there cannot be a level playing field in terms of fair competition on the airwaves.

All three points were raised in a Times of Malta interview with Broadcasting Authority chairman Anthony Tabone.

Mr Tabone did not say much but he meant a lot when he declared: “An authority that was set up in 1961 during a colonial government when there was only one station does merit being looked at to determine whether its remit and composition should change.”

On the issue of the two political stations balancing themselves out, he acknowledged the formula did not work and views it as a “disservice”.

Will the PL-PN tandem continue to rule the airwaves, quite literally?

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.