Former Broadcasting Authority board member Kenneth Wain said yesterday he was “not impressed” with how the regulator had justified a controversial decision favouring political parties.
The broadcasting watchdog ruled on Tuesday that political parties had free rein in deciding who appeared on their behalf on current affairs shows aired on state television.
The decision was met with incredulity by the Public Broadcasting Services, which had requested the ruling after clashing on the issue with the Labour Party.
Prof. Wain deemed the decision wrong: “PBS belongs to the people, not to political parties. They have no right to control who appears on the national broadcaster.
“Politicians appear as guests. Programme producers have every right to invite the individuals they want to their own shows.”
The regulator felt there was no reason to change the system seeing as it had “worked so satisfactorily over the past years for all parties”.
That explanation left Prof. Wain cold. “I’m absolutely not impressed with the reasoning. Just because something is ticking along it doesn’t mean it’s correct.”
Both major political parties are allowed a representative on the Broadcasting Authority board and Prof. Wain argued that, as long overt political influence on the board continued, so too would such controversies.
“Therein lies the root of the problem. Unless we change that and try for some objectivity, problems will remain,” he said.
The controversy erupted when the PL asked to send MP Karmenu Vella instead of MP Charles Mangion to appear on Bondì+, a current affairs show on state television.
PBS chairman Joseph Mizzi said that in informal meetings held just some months ago, the authority had indicated it was happy with PBS’ policy of selecting its own guests.
Sources close to the Broadcasting Authority said it was “very unhappy” with the “inconsistency” of authority chairman Anthony Tabone.
“He first said, privately, that stations should be free to pick their own guests, only to then change his mind after a rowdy meeting,” the sources complained.
When contacted, Mr Tabone said that he preferred not to comment on the matter.
The sources argued that the controversy would never have erupted had PBS not written a letter to the authority requesting a ruling.
“The Broadcasting Authority is there as a watchdog, not to set individual stations’ policies.”
But PBS CEO Anton Attard said the request came from the station’s desire to be as above board as possible. And while he noted PBS would abide by the authority’s ruling, he called the decision “a joke”.
“I challenge the authority to seek advice from authorities in civilised countries. This practice of political parties sending whoever they want on TV is probably customary in dictatorships,” he said.
Former Broadcasting Authority CEO Antoine Ellul declined to comment, although he explained how, during his tenure, political parties could only pick who to send to party political broadcasts produced by the Broadcasting Authority. “If a broadcast was organised by the broadcaster, the station could pick whoever they wanted as guests, as long as the proper balance was kept.”
Two other former Broadcasting Authority board members who declined to be named had some sympathy for the present chairman.
One argued through analogy: “I understand PBS’ position but the PL has a point: a political party is like a football team, made up of players. Shouldn’t it be the coach’s prerogative who to send on the pitch?”
In a statement, the Nationalist Party tore into the Broadcasting Authority, accusing it of “propping up” the PL and “acting like big brother”. A spokesman said the decision “set the country 30 years back”.
The PL said the decision had foiled the PN’s “unscrupulous” plan of using the national broadcaster to its political advantage.