In another political era, a Cabinet minister had declared that national broadcasting should nurture a socialist generation, or words to that effect. Thankfully, the majority of people willed otherwise and the State broadcasting station was spared from being a brainwashing tool.
The Constitution demands that the broadcasting services practise “due impartiality” in “matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy” and that people having diverse political opinions should have equal access to broadcasting facilities.
The State broadcasting station has a tough job to do in terms of ensuring impartiality and balance. It is a task that the editorial staff at Public Broadcasting Services have to deal with on a daily basis, especially during an electoral campaign.
The same does not apply to the newsrooms at Net and One, or any other private station. This is because the Broadcasting Act lays down that, except for PBS, the broadcasting watchdog should consider the general output of programmes provided by the various providers together as a whole.
Since the two big political parties were licensed to have both a TV and a radio station – the same opportunity was offered to the Church, which, however, only runs a radio station – nobody really expected the political stations to give the other side the same airtime when dealing with certain issues.
The law was, of course, approved by both parties represented in Parliament. The Broadcasting Authority was hardly expected to object, especially given it is ‘dominated’ by party appointees.
So, although we speak of ‘public’ broadcasting, in reality, the public as such has very little say in what happens there. The two big parties call the shots, even if indirectly.
They practically have the right to determine who PBS should invite to participate in programmes of a political nature. It’s either that or it would have to ask non-politicians to appear.
That situation led to the tragicomedy where Labour decided to be ‘represented’ by rebel Nationalist MP Franco Debono for a debate on Xarabank with Nationalist deputy leader Simon Busuttil.
A similar incident occurred when the PN insisted that Dr Busuttil should be present in the studio when PL deputy leader Louis Grech was due to be interviewed on Dissett.
No less silly was the broadcasting watchdog’s position that PBS journalists chairing its televised debates are unable to ask questions. The State broadcaster was right to take a stand on this.
Public broadcasting needs to be restored to its rightful owners: the people. That might mean amending and updating the Broadcasting Act and its schedules. It would also necessitate changes to the set-up and functions of the Broadcasting Authority ensuring that it only serves as a watchdog rather than as a producer of programmes, apart, of course, in the case of party political broadcasts.
PBS and other providers know – or, at least, they should know – what their legal obligations are. If they fail, that is where the broadcasting regulator should come in: to give directives – rather than recommendations, as was the case with the Dissett controversy – for defaulters to come in line or face legal proceedings.
The problem is: who will bell the cat? Which political party will be willing to come forward and put the public first, even before its own interests.
The parties will release their electoral manifestos any day now. Will they include proposals to give broadcasting back to the people?