Anton Attard’s appointment as CEO at the national broadcaster six years ago was not without its criticism. Mr Attard, who had directed the Nationalist Party’s election campaign two years earlier, was viewed by the Labour Party in Opposition as another government cog at PBS.
Labour functionaries believed the move was nothing more than an effort by the then Nationalist government to strengthen its control of the national station. It is no wonder that, after the 2013 election and the change in government, Labour supporters were flabbergasted when Mr Attard was retained in his post.
Mr Attard’s position was trumpeted many times by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat as a sign of the Labour government’s mantra that it was after talent not political allegiance. And the same will probably be said now of Mr Attard’s replacement, TV presenter John Bundy.
Very few doubted Mr Attard’s technical acumen and vision. When he was at the helm, the station continued to increase audience share and equipment was modernised. However, on the financial side, the public broadcaster came in for some scathing remarks by the National Audit Office last December after the station racked up losses of €950,000 and €1.4 million in 2013 and 2014.
Whether Mr Bundy has the talent to fulfil the role of CEO still has to be seen. His job is not just about what programmes go on air and organising Malta’s Eurovision Song Festival entry, though that might be a chore Mr Attard will be handling now. The person occupying that position must have as financial diligence as much as expertise in broadcasting.
People watching from the sidelines are, therefore, confused when politicians seem to have a direct hand in the appointment of the state broadcaster’s topmost executive.
It may be less baffling for the politically blinkered, who expect PBS to be a natural extension of the government propaganda machine, which explains the anger of the Labour grassroots when Mr Attard was retained. How Mr Bundy will be viewed by these people is a question of time.
Of course, reason and logic dictate that the post in question requires competence and this should be assessed by the PBS board, aided by outside advisers. None of this seems to have happened with Mr Bundy, who was presented to the board of directors as a done deal.
Asking the board to vote on the appointment without giving them the opportunity to at least interview Mr Bundy first to assess his vision for the station was an exercise in blind democracy.
In the circumstances, the vote taken by the board can only be interpreted as nothing more than a rubber stamp to make the government’s decision more acceptable. Some might argue that the call for applications in 2010, when Mr Attard was appointed, was a mere veneer of transparency.
The crux of the problem is not the people chosen to fill such sensitive public posts but the system through which they are appointed. Suspicion of political allegiance or convenience only weakens an incumbent’s position.
Former Nationalist Cabinet minister Austin Gatt once made the case for political appointees to authorities and public agencies as a means to ensure that government policy, which people would have voted for, is implemented. He may have had a point, but PBS is a different kettle of fish. It is a media outlet with a democratic function. It is not the purveyor of government policy but the watchdog of it. Or so we would like to think.