The Broadcasting Authority wanted to know what televiewers think of the quality of what they see. A study was commissioned and focus group participants were asked to discuss what they understood by “quality programming” and say how would they conclude whether a programme had good or bad quality. They also had to bear in mind both local and foreign programmes and draw comparisons.
The participants admitted they found it difficult explaining what they understand by quality.
Comparisons are odious and, as they say, one man’s meat is another man’s poison. This led the study authors to note that “every genre will be evaluated by a different dimension of the ‘quality’construct.A quality programme is one that ‘gives you what you are looking for’, that does what its genre sets out to do”.
This must have left the Broadcasting Authority board in a quandary in ensuring that quality of TV programming is up to the standards televiewers expect. That is because the study indicates there is no one category of ‘televiewers’ but various, each with its own tastes, level of intelligence, tolerance ceiling and values.
Yet, as noted by Broadcasting Authority chairman Anthony Tabone, “quality content is acknowledged as important for a democratic society”.
So how will Mr Tabone and his board decide whether the Maltese have quality TV, especially if, as he notes, “television has a bright future, only if producers and station owners ensure that they provide the viewer with quality content”? For the dilemma remains: what constitutes “quality content”and how do you gauge whether it is being delivered or not? Some would promptly say go by the size of the audience. But that would be giving a new definition to quality.
What the masses want is not necessarily quality. Indeed, it rarely is. Popular shows may sell and last but they usually do not impress in a positive way and make very little, if any, valid contribution to society.
The Arts Council Malta’s director of strategy, Toni Attard, put it very eloquently when he declared: “The fact that people want something says absolutely nothing about how well produced it is. People want fast food and they consume it; that doesn’t mean it’s a Michelin-star restaurant.”
As expected, Peppi Azzopardi, the presenter of Xarabank, the TV show with the biggest audience, took a different approach: “Programmes are meant to be watched. It’s a serious problem if there are so-called quality programmes no one sees.” He even suggested the government should not fund “high-brow” programmes while more popular ones were left to fend for themselves.
The Broadcasting Authority has indeed quite a task ensuring quality in programming. Heeding Mr Attard’s wise advise would help.
To start with, it should make sure broadcasting does not go down the “slippery slope of mediocrity”, though some programmes, even very popular ones, have already done so.
It should be careful not to contribute to the “dumbing-down” of television audiences. “The audience aren’t dumb; they can judge quality and choose for themselves. But we need to give them the necessary tools and options to make that decision,” Mr Attard said.
There is need of a quality boost. A comprehensive plan is a must and the Broadcasting Authority has no alternative but to deliver.