The Nationalist party has reversed its decision to block its electoral candidates from appearing on its television and radio stations. This was inevitable. The Labour Party media uses every media skill it can muster among its ranks, and is at a distinct advantage. There is media talent within the PN, and it is now clearly all hands on deck for the next election.
This gives a sense of déjà-vu. The Malta Labour Party had set up the first private television station in Malta in the 1990s. At the time the PN had resisted taking this step. Unsurprisingly, within a few years the PN also had to set up a television station, to counteract their political rivals who were charging on full steam ahead with a successful newsroom.
As a result, we live with an unhealthy broadcasting scenario, dominated by a government-appointed public broadcaster and two political party outlets. Media pluralism is essential for the proper functioning of democracy, but Malta is the only EU country where political parties own television stations and newsrooms.
It is almost impossible for other private, commercial stations to survive in this small market, with limited advertising revenue and high costs. The cake is simply not big enough. The public broadcaster PBS receives public funds, and the political stations hold fund-raising activities. Neither option is available to ordinary private entities.
After the 1987 election the new government had introduced media pluralism. The Broadcasting Act was enacted in 1991 and soon afterwards the first private radio and television licences were granted.
The scenario has changed dramatically with the internet. Times Talk was slashed from PBS last season, but is streaming interviews on its online portal instead. When David Thake’s radio show on NET was discontinued, he ran it through the internet. But television is still a very powerful source of news and information. The way it is regulated and managed has a major impact on viewers. Here again, the situation is unhealthy. A clause in the law enables the Broadcasting Authority to exempt political party stations from the idea of ‘balance’ within their outlets. It monitors PBS current affairs and news programmes, yet the political bias of the two party stations is given a free rein.
The domination of our air waves by political propaganda must stop. But for that to happen, both sides must play ball
Censorship is not the way forward, and news and current affairs shows should not be stifled. Attempts to create balance are sometimes counter-productive. Too often, genuine expertise is ‘balanced’ by some opinionated person who loudly pushes an opposing view but is far less informed. That is a disservice to viewers.
But the current scenario, with its limited regulation of the party stations, does not serve the best interests of the public. Rampant bias leads to deterioration in the quality of news. There is already enough rubbish and fake news on the internet without having our television stations filled with tall stories.
Each of the two political stations has no choice but to constantly counteract the political bias of the other, with equal and opposite force. For example, this is why the PN is reversing it decision and will allow its candidates to host programmes after all. They have no option but to react to the other side. The lack of regulation encourages polarisation.
What is the solution? Should the party stations be shut down? Pluralism is essential. We cannot return to a situation where television in this country is dependent on a single government-dominated newsroom. Those of us who remember the 1980s will shudder at the thought. Back then only TVM was permitted to broadcast, and to respond to its bias the Opposition of the day had to resort to setting up a radio station in Sicily, which could be received and heard in Malta.
Media pluralism is vital, but so is good and ethical journalism. Many people have pointed out the weaknesses of our broadcasting scene over the years. Many promises have been made that the situation will be addressed and improved, but things have remained the same.
The next election is looming and it is time for political parties to lay down their cards and tell us what they will do. So far, only Simon Busuttil has published his proposals for better governance of this sector. For a start, he has promised to legally require the media organisations of political parties to respect balance.
He also promises to review the composition of the Broadcasting Authority, reducing the influence of political parties. He says he will secure the freedom of PBS to operate at arm’s length from the political influence of the government of the day.
Busuttil has also committed to remove the law under which journalists and media organisations can be sued for criminal libel. That is all good. Now let’s hear what the PL plans to do in this area, so that people can make up their minds in a fair and open manner.
The domination of our air waves by political propaganda must stop. But for that to happen, both sides must play ball. Otherwise we will remain stuck in this eternal wheel where nobody can get off the ride because the other side will immediately grab the prize.
petracdingli@gmail.com