Monday, 4th August 2008
Are we politically mature enough?
‘Dr Fenech Adami said the fact that PN was about to have its own TV station
should eventually lead to the termination of the need felt by the parties to own
their own television stations. Ownership of television stations by the political
parties was thus a transitional phenomenon, Dr Fenech Adami said, adding
that after a period of time, as the management of politics matured, the need for
the parties to have their own stations would cease.’
(Said, I., The Times, 2.12.98, p7)
I'm sure that most do not remember these comments by former Prime Minister Dr Fenech Adami. Even I had totally forgotten about them. I rediscovered them when I was re-reading the fine dissertation by Beatrice Gatt (All her friends know her as Bibbo.) The dissertation titled “Television ownership in Malta: Democratic Implications” was part of her studies for MA in Mass Communication.
Why are the media silent?
The Prime Minister has tried to launch a discussion about the role of political parties in our broadcasting scenario. In his letter to Dr Joseph Muscat of July 7, Dr Gonzi wrote that he was ready to consider setting up better and more effective regulations for political stations. He then went further. He wrote that he was even ready to revise the role of political parties in the local media landscape! The Prime Minister showed courage and foresight but unfortunately the media, the bloggers and others did not do any follow-up discussion. Why are the media not interested in the future of our own media landscape?
Exploring new avenues
There is another question which is more basic: Have we, as a country, reached the state of maturity mentioned by Dr Fenech Adami and the courage showed by Prime Minister Gonzi?
I referred to this topic in my blog and criticised in several fora the way political party media are run. I think that Government’s decision way back in 1991 to give a radio frequency to the two main political parties and the Church was a good idea. Same could be said about the giving of TV frequencies. The country had, a few years before, gone through a long period of systematic and massive manipulation of state broadcasting. It was really a case of Dardir Malta not Xandir Malta!
Who does not remember;
- the airing of “Run Rabbit Run” and “Bongu Malta Socjalista” even before there were any official indications of the results of the 1981 election?
- The manipulation of the speech of the Pope to Prime Minister Mintoff before the same election?
- The censorship of even the name of the Leader of the Opposition?
These are just three examples of the hundreds that one can give. The granting of a broadcasting licence to the political parties (even Alternattiva ran a radio station for quite some time) guaranteed a voice to the political players. It is very unfortunate that for several reasons the stations did not rise up to the occasion and debased themselves into mere propaganda outlets than real broadcasting stations. There were efforts to steer away from this pitfall but in it they eventually fell. This was not just an ethical mistake. It was a strategic one as well since they just became the home of the converted.
The political environment is now different from that of the Early Nineties. I think that it is high time to explore different avenues. Instead of direct party ownership of different political stations one can explore:
- an experiment in line with the Dutch model of broadcasting. We could have a second public service channel focussing on discussions, current affairs, information etc. The different political parties and other institutions will be responsible for some of the programmes that will be broadcast.
- A TV station run by a company owned by both political parties. Each party will be responsible, for example, for the production of one news bulletin every day and a couple of programmes. The parties will then use their production facilities to produce drama, children’s programmes, and other general interest programmes. In an opinion piece I had written in The Times I had called this proposal Dream TV. Probably it is, and it will certainly remain so.
These are just two ideas. Others would surely develop if the subject is objectively and realistically discussed.
A most definitive no-no
I watched Dr Reno Borg during a discussion on One TV. Dr Borg had harsh words about the way the PBS newsroom is (according to him) run and about the alleged peccadilloes (broadcasting-wise, that is) of the independent producers who supply PBS with current affairs programmes.
His words reflect badly on PBS and the independent producers. But his words, if they are a correct assessment of the situation, would be tantamount to a condemnation of the Broadcasting Authority. “So what?”, one may ask “doesn’t Dr Borg have a right for his opinion?” He has. But there is a detail of some relevance which could somehow make one give a different answer to that question. Dr Reno Borg is a member of the Broadcasting Authority. Should he publicly speak in such a way that some may conclude that the Authority is incompetent and is not doing its duty well?
Besides, how can Dr Borg speak the way he spoke, and then, as member of the Broadcasting Authority pretend to be perceived as an impartial judge whenever the PBS is summoned for judgement before the BA?
Perhaps this should not trouble anyone unduly since, as a gentleman, Dr Borg would surely refrain from sitting on any PBS case.
Dr Muscat and divorce
I read the piece in The Sunday Times (August 3, 2008 page 120) entitled: Muscat prepared to present Divorce Bill. If Dr Muscat, the Leader of the Labour Party, was well quoted I think that his position smacks of political opportunism more than of anything else. I will wait a couple of days to see whether there will be any correction or clarification. If not I will take the article as a fair assessment of what he said and comment about it.
RSS
Comments
Are your feet standing on a floor? :) Who knows? if you can see no door it can be one of two things, one of them being that you are in a great wide open space that is the garden of Eden where birds sings and skies dazzle, or that ...
take care
The antonym of political maturity is political immaturity not mediocrity.
Mediocrity is a result of political immaturity and other factors.
Mediocrity is reflected in culture and not individuals.
We may have the best lawyers or doctors, yet the process to obtain their services may be a hostile one (example one year for an appointment with a specialist of your choice when a similar appointment with a UK specialist can be arranged within 7 days, or 25 years to have a sentence delivered by a court of law etc ).
It is not possible to discuss immature politics in such a tight scenario... briefly, immature politics is a system based on personalities and patronage.
When a winning party at a general election may have promised, say, a reduction in the rate of income tax, no downsizing in a specific sector, or made promises to shanty-towns or an archaic transport system, (mediocrity personified) etc etc, which promises may be denounced soon after an election victory, the media of such a mature democracy will ensure that such behavior is not let to melt away.
A mature media will identify and acknowledge mediocrity and debate a way forward beyond character assassinations.
1. definition of political maturity.
Also give me examples such as when we Maltese were:
2. Grossly immature or mediocre,
3. moderately immature
4. least immature
straight answers will be greatly appreciated considering my igorance about the matter and my eagerness to learn.
We are discussing political maturity and the role of broadcasting.
We seek to develop a society that provides the best living-experience to its citizens.
We agree that we made improvements since independence but we should have achieved much more.
I argue that mediocrity pervades most aspects of our life. Mediocrity means dull, average, unrefined, patchy.
Mediocrity has become a culture as individuals consider it an achievement we should be proud of.
This attitude denies mediocrity and therefore precludes us from striving for excellence.
Good architects can only be average in a culture of mediocrity. Name one 50 tearold building that attracts interest of visitors?
The ultimate question concerns the media’s role in propelling Malta away from its culture of mediocrity.
With a prevailing culture as sustained by political class there will not be a healthy basis for discussion that will prompt us to disengage from our mediocrity mind-set. A politically propelled media will sell us mediocrity as being excellence or thereabouts.
After all, your line of argument confirms Peter Prictoe’s statement (with which i'm in agreement): The tragedy is that such a highly intelligent race has allowed itself to be dogged down by internal politics.
so, now 'common-sense' is opportunism? but then again, you are a priest.
As a Mediterranean race we tend to argue long and vehemently about everything, very often with more emotion than reason. Reading some of the comments on local blogs it is easy to suspect that the MLP has already started to deal with its primadonnas by relegating some of them to the role of commentators who feel free to criticise heaven and earth but become livid with rage if anyone else presumes to present a dissenting opinion and accuse them of being judgemental, denigrators and God only knows what else!
How about the other professions?
I love my country and will not glorify our mediocrity just to make a point.
I will therefore focus on one element to discuss our mediocrity.
You mention the high standards of our architect class. I am in full agreement.
And so I move to the bottom line:
Our sprawl is singularly horrific, the quality of our road network unequalled, detail (example City Gate) shabby, our construction culture rivals and possibly exceeds the ‘sack of Palermo’. Disturbance caused to residents is as great as it is widespread as it varies from dust to noise pollution etc.
Why this when we have excellent architects? How is our university contributing to bring about a basis for a radical change that may permit harmony in joy.
How does our Media deal with this state of affairs?
A dynamic 'media' is a cornerstone to our development into a society that values human joy
1.Thanks for the compliment.
2.Our 'internal politics' is usually taken up by men and woman who, if they were smarter, would have made it good in a private business and/or as high calibre professionals while staying away from 'internal politics'. It is a blessing that sometimes we are blessed with a reverse situation, that is, a successful professional-turns-politician. Such persons then make it to the top of our political ladder and it is due to these few good men that our level of politics is not down in the gutter. Meanwhile rest assured that our professionals are really professional.
So, what I am trying to say is that while most of our politicians are playing their political games, we plebs are silently working hard to move this nation forward, in spite of the mediocre few who inhabit this land of ours, trying to take free rides on our backs. I suppose this is more or less the situation in many first world countries,but then you may not agree that this is so in the UK.
Meanwhile can you please expand on your statement: 'A dynamic 'media' is a cornerstone to our development into a society that values human joy'? My lack of intelligence precludes me from understanding easily this seemingly great but yet unpublished discovery of the modern age.
BTW can Dr Vassallo tell us why Alternattiva owned a radio station but is now no longer an owner . Once he promised to tell me that story. He didn't. Perhaps he recounts it here.
Surely, Malta lost its strategic importance only after the Second World War during which battered from the air and besieged from the sea it still managed to interfere with Rommel's supply line so severely that Montogomery received his much needed supplies to resume the offensive before Rommel did.
Malta lost its strategic importance with the advent of long range intercontinental ballistic missiles, air re-refuelling, long range nuclear submarines and potent mobile aircraft carrier fleets that packed a tremendous punch although they could not be considered unsinkable.
The tragedy is that such a highly intelligent race has allowed itself to be dogged down by internal politics.
We are in complete agrement. Of course we are not excellently mature but who is?
The blind insistence on nothing short of excellence is the greatest obstacle to the achievement of what would be the best achievable under the existing political circumstances.
I consider this opinion as being a myth that keeps us from evolving from a mediocre country (we can possibly claim to have perfected mediocrity) onto an idyllic lifestyle of charm and tranquility.
A dynamic 'media' is a cornerstone to our development into a society that values human joy.
I agree with you in that Malta is better than some other democracies - and worse than some.
What I am urging is the pursuit of excellence for which Malta is not noted.
Malta bumbles along and I say that whilst aware of the defiencies of my own UK.
@Alex Ellul:
Yes of course Malta will survive but that is not the point at issue.
I have been contributing to Maltese groups for many years and so often I have read your
claims of ancient Malta as compared to other parts of Europe. It does not hold water because we in Britain were also colonised by Rome but only the upper classess in both countries lived in luxury. More to the point is that we cherish our Roman ruins whilst I read in today's Maltese papers of the dereliction of Malta's Roman baths. As a child in Malta some seventy years back they were impressive-but then so was the Opera House.
Quoting you verbatim: "Then die, Caesar!"
Response: Amen to that.
Whenever someone writes to criticise one Party, you have a host of protests trying to stifle him (or her, of course) and branding him as coming from the opposing Party. The same applies when criticisng the second Party!
There is absolutely no difference! the mentality is there for all to see.
We have reached a stage where people try to stifle you through their writings, through their pseud-wit, and also through connections they have.
I always say that 'It's the singer, not the song'. What I mean is that it's not the message that is important but who is giving that message.
Are we living in a democracy? I think that if we are, it is a defective one: we are like a one-legged man, hobbling along. There is gangrene in that one leg.
Why not take a look at the various media that our political parties have? Their news bulletins? Their online extensions? Disgusting! (And equally disgusting Maltese language used, to booth!) You simply don't know where truth is, anymore!
Then, die Caesar!
"Enough?" - No, much room for improvement.
A mature public knows that politically funded TV and radio stations exist only to promote their own party's interests. Our own political TV stations are considerate enough to broadcast their own version of the news in sequence allowing comparison between the Jeremiad of one station read out by smirking newscasters and the Nirvana of the other read out by its smug newscasters. That is why a discerning audience shows its preference for the MTV version.
There will always be many who blindly accept the biased version of their party TV/radio station because of their blinkered support for "my party, right or wrong". These are not the people who matter at election time. These would be the more discerning "floating" voters who do not sell their soul to any political party irrespective of its performance when in power or on the opposition benches. Political TV and radio stations should be paying more attention to this audience.
If we are so politically immature as many here are suggesting how come does TVM lead in the BA viewership survey?
Especially since, according to the report, TVM led between January and March (at the height of the election campaign)?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080805/local/tvm-one-lead-tv-and-radio-surveys
Does this show that we have tired of the politically owned stations? One would have thought that during the election campaign party supporters would have preferred to get the skinny from the election campaign and subsequent results from their party-owned station.
Is this a sign of political maturity? I think it is. we are still in the throes of development but it is a sign nonetheless. It is up to the stations to to realise it and adjust accordingly.
Sorry for you, but you should have resisted the temptation to ask d.attard to elucidate. Now you are stuck with his offer to provide (what? a cadaver?) in maximum rigor (? mortis).
"Are we politically mature enough?"
The short answer is "No"
Malta has been independent for long enough for politics to settle into the general pattern of Europe in general and the EU in particular.
d attard writes
"Re: what I think of media ownership (including PBS/RTK/RTU etc) by ‘political’ 'parties'; I would like to know if the state of the media in Malta is a primary cause for our intellectual ineptitude, inefficient and amorphous economy, poor education, hate culture, gambling/alcohol/drug-abuse anti-family culture... My invitation is an open one… "
PP Since you say the invitation is an open one:
My short answer is "Yes".
Here in the UK I read one weekly newspaper-the "Catholic Herald" that is apolitical.
My eyesight is now too poor to read a daily and I rely mostly on the radio -
mostly the BBC which has a slightly liberal left wing bias that is to my own taste.
I love Malta but despair of it..
"How come he who was dubbed as the Great Manipulator i.e. Peppi Azzopardi has now been anointed as the Ethical Guru and commissioned, together with others. to teach ONE journalists and programme producers the ethical way of behaving?" - not that difficult to answer. It's MLPN "If you can't beat them join them mentality". Peppi's value of captivator of the mass audience was finally recognised by MLP. Beating Peppi with a stick had not worked so now they try to assimilate him.
In no way does that mean that the discussion agenda on National TV is deep, interesting, challenging or thought provocative. Where is Malta's equivalent of Rai 3? Italy gets Le Iene we get Dejjem Tieghek Becky. Are we politically mature enough? Not really. Who is holding us back? No prizes for guessing.
So long as the current status befits the political parties no effort for real change will happen. They would be stupid to go for the change, and we would be stupid to expect them of all people to go about it. Political Party TV's are dead... long live political party tvs.
Dear Father,
Your suggestion that research questions may be loaded takes me by surprise. I will revise and update to ensure maximum rigor.
My surprise stems from professional assurance that these are standard questions made to analyse agenda-setting forces operating in any society.
It is of course known that these questions tend to make the players themselves uncomfortable.
Your Post Scriptum suggests that you may still be influenced by the red/blue/mediocrity culture. You may therefore want to revise your understanding of ‘homogeneous establishment’.
The appointment of Mr Azzopardi has to be seen within this understanding. Your comments however are singularly illustrative of mind-set. Thanks.
Finally, may I distance myself from any opinion that dubs Mr Azzopardi as being 'the Great Manipulator'.
My own bias is that Mr Azzopardi himself is neither a great nor a small manipulator. Research may of course throw some light on this sub-issue too.
Re: what I think of media ownership (including PBS/RTK/RTU etc) by ‘political’ 'parties'; I would like to know if the state of the media in Malta is a primary cause for our intellectual ineptitude, inefficient and amorphous economy, poor education, hate culture, gambling/alcohol/drug-abuse anti-family culture... My invitation is an open one…
I do not denigrate anybody. I expose fallacious and hypocritical arguments and allow their authors to denigrate themselves.
If you are still in the process of designing your research questions can i suggest another area: How come he who was dubbed as the Great Manipulator i.e. Peppi Azzopardi has now been anointed as the Ethical Guru and commissioned, together with others. to teach ONE journalists and programme producers the ethical way of behaving?
Why?
Perhaps the saddest point you raise in this debate is the fact that although both sides of the political spectrum have turned their attention to this issue, the press (with the exception of a recent editorial in this newspaper) have remained largely silent. Columnists who normally add their two-cents worth to any issue are ignoring the problem and the developments that have taken place in the last month.
It is time that we realise that this is an important national issue with major democratic implications. If there are any changes in the pipeline, they need to be discussed and consulted upon with the interests of civil society at the fore. Our new political climate should facilitate for and encourage this debate.
I would like to think that the days where the two main power blocks can come to a private agreement to maintain the status quo are over.
At the time of the "run rabbit ran" episode Xandir Malta was a state monopoly paid for by all the taxpayer, of all political creeds, and it was supposed to be impartial and not blatantly trying to create a socialist society by its "vulgarity".
Nowadays there is at least a freedom of the air open to all political parties and commercial entities, a choice to switch from one station to another and hopefully a maturing listening public that is allowed to discriminate and choose between what is quality broadcasting and what is dross.
At first I was rashly tempted to ask for clarification of what you meant exactly by more of your convoluted comments but, on second thoughts, I prefer not to run the risk of having to disentagle more of your labyrinthine research.
I wonder if he would be at all interested in my planned research in the role, if any, of Xarabank or Bondiplus in an agenda setting process?
if in practice WEs ethic is closely related to that of the homogeneous establishment, providing a vital support for the existing order?
if the public is enticed with ‘good’ television into an acceptance of the biased, the misleading, and the status quo?
if they may be considered as crude agents of propaganda, organisers of public understanding?
if the overall interpretations they provide in the long run are those which are most preferred by, and least challenging to, those with economic/political power?
Will any evidence that Maltese voters tend to share WEs composite definition of what is important lead to a need to investigate the worrying suggestion of an agenda-setting function of WE?
Father Joe's experience may provide invaluable inputs into the planned research