The happenings at Public Broadcasting Services over the past weeks have given rise to much public concern. PBS is like no other media house. It is funded through taxpayer money and its role is defined by law. It is to ensure “due impartiality” in news and current affairs programmes. Yet, for decades it has been a source of controversy, mainly because it is often perceived as being a tool in the hands of government.
The political appointment of John Bundy as the new CEO was controversial because he came across as a government imposition on the public broadcaster.
Then came the review of the station’s schedule. In a decision that was likely to have been taken before Mr Bundy’s appointment, the Times of Malta’s news analysis programme Times Talk – which consistently topped viewership surveys in its time segment – was axed with no explanation offered. An application by The Malta Independent was also turned down.
Also close to getting ousted was the immensely popular Friday debate show Xarabank, after 19 years, but that decision was reversed. It may have been a warning. But when it became known that even Salvu Mallia’s cultural programme Madwarna was out, then a pattern began to emerge. It appears that TVM is being cleansed.
The Labour Party does not have a good track record in government where public broadcasting is concerned. The days of Xandir Malta in the 1980s are hard to forget. Successive Nationalist governments have shamefully failed to solve the enigma that is the national broadcaster. There is no autonomy, no independent body to govern it, just a Broadcasting Authority that steps in to sometimes remedy a complaint, belatedly.
Despite the pluralism in the broadcasting sector, PBS has an essential role to play, a role fundamental to democracy.
The national broadcaster is taxpayers’ property, not the government’s, and it is their interests that need to be upheld. This should entail not just neutrality and impartiality but an effort to hold those in power to account. How tragically far away we are from that ideal.
To fulfil such a role would require a truly independent and autonomous governing body, and an independent editorial policy in line with its legal obligations. But instead PBS has not only taken on the confused role of a commercial entity, unfairly competing with the private sector, but is often seen as an apologist for the government.
There is a lot of good to build upon at PBS but that would involve maturity. It would mean appointing qualified personnel and providing the necessary structures to protect them from the political interference that has become so evident. It takes much political will to achieve that.
The role of the national broadcaster also includes the transmission of quality programmes, something the private sector cannot always afford because of limited resources and market size.
But the sad state of local TV media was exposed last year when Arts Council Malta allocated funds to promote creative and innovative programmes, but then did not find enough programmes to allocate the funds to.
Political interference in the national broadcaster only brings rot. PBS is being treated as a government department, from where to disburse favours, when it should be an autonomous institution.
Bringing in competing media houses to host current affairs programmes was a step in the right direction because it gave the station a national, pluralistic role. Programmes such as Times Talk were not some government concession to be grateful for. Appeasement was never on the cards.
If there were legitimate reasons for axing the programme – which was popular, high-quality and innovative – they have not yet been disclosed to us, despite a request. Failing that, this will be viewed as another decision that smacks of interference from the highest levels. It only undermines democracy and raises the spectre of Labour past.