I have mixed feelings about the recent Public Broadcasting Services Ltd (PBS) directive regarding exclusionary TV guest representation, which was apparently sprung on TVM, TVM2 and Radio Malta producers at the eleventh hour. By which I mean September 20, just 10 days before TVM kicked off its autumn schedule, on the cusp of an imminent electoral campaign.
The PN definitely used to be the party I felt most comfortable with- Michela Spiteri
The letter, signed by CEO chief executive Anton Attard, and addressed to the various show producers, was meant to read like a surprise of sorts – like the PBS editorial board’s decision allowing producers to select specific guests to the exclusion of all others,without any interference, post mortems or scrutiny from either political party, was supposedly the first they were hearing of it. Oh, and in case of any difficulty they were to contact the editor.
Needless to say, the respective producers were not taken by surprise and had absolutely no difficulty with the directive. Or ifthey did, none was registered, undoubtedly because it was their idea to begin with. I don’t know the exact ins and outs at PBS,who makes up the editorial board and how it effects its decisions, but I can’t imagine a decision like that being taken unbeknownst to producers and without their aforethought.
I’m guessing the producers were probably the chief catalysts of this directive, fed up – perhaps justifiably – of pandering to politicians and their frequently blinkered vision, bent on pushing and manipulating their own agenda, sending along whoever – Jane or Johnny come lately – with no real regard to individual competence and the bigger picture.
As one producer told me, a propos of his own TV production experience, the directive is a sieving exercise of sorts, meant to separate the wheat from the chaff. Too many times, his own show was compromised because political parties did not respect the guests he had selected and carefully hand-picked, not without his fair share of research, hard work and co-ordination.
Only to end up with a bunch of party loyalists or a variation of bimbos or bimbobs who did not contribute anything substantially meaningful to the show.
The Nationalist Party were almost too cool with the idea, so cool they didn’t even react to it, except to rubbish and pooh-pooh the Labour Party, who, it appears, unsurprisingly, were the last to know and were visibly non-plussed. The Labour Party, manifestly ruffled by the directive, regarded it suspiciously as a subterfuge of sorts and to this end they registered their animus towards what they perceived was a cheap shot at best. A deliberate attempt to unlevel the political playing field and sideline Labour on the eve of an election and render it voiceless.
On the face of it, Labour could easily come across as paranoid and insecure – a party that has no faith or confidence in its own members, or one with far too many donkeys in its closet.
On closer analysis, however, and when you are aware of the PN stalwarts who run the show that is PBS, you realise that their ‘paranoia’, is undeniably justifiable.
PBS is reputably more Nationalist than the PN station Net, precisely because any Nationalist bias or slant is far more damaging than it could ever be on Net TV orRadio 101, where bias is expected, even permitted.
By comparison, State broadcasting run with taxpayers’ money should by its very nature be impartial. Labour’s opposition to the directive even found favour with the Broadcasting Authority, which subsequently impugned thedirective, and gave credence to Labour’s argumentation.
The moral of the story here was that even the Broadcasting Authority was ultimately convinced that the directive would ultimately translate in an unfair bias, with the balance tipped in favour of PN guest speakers.
I found the whole issue particularly interesting, more so because of what is signified, in the grander scheme of politics. You see, while I can clearly identify with and understand the value of the PBS directive – after all a TV or radio station should be able to call its own shots and invite its own guests – I too have reservations on just how free and democratic the selection process would ultimately be.
Hence my mixed feelings. For all I know, the directive is in good faith and will translate into much better television and my scepticism is undeserved and unfair, which only makes it even more tragic – much as I want to trust State broadcasting and believe in its neutrality, I don’t.
And this feeling of mistrust (whether deserved or not) has spilled over to most if not all aspects of the current Government, whether it’s the car park privatisation or some other tender, project or scheme. So you see, although perhaps entirely unfounded, perception counts for everything. And politically dishonest is what we have come to expect from this Government.
We have become so used to hearing the tired and hackneyed complaint – that Gonzi is a weak and ineffectual leader, running a country (to the ground), navigating a rudderless ship, which has hit iceberg after iceberg, clutching at straws and power far too long.
As far as I am concerned, I do believe that this last week was probably the most painful to watch. What with the U-turns, the desperate attempts to save face and avoid embarrassing resignations, with the latest House Business Committee prolonging the agony until November 12 to discuss yet another motion of no confidence in Austin Gatt.
The PN definitely used to be the party I felt most comfortable with and perhaps it will always be the party of my imagination. Still, I have no hesitation in saying that with the way things stand now, politically, I feel like a refugee and outcast.
And I know there are many more where I come from – people who can’t shake off the feeling that they are getting short shrift and short-changed. It’s a feeling that won’t go away, not until the party is detoxed, broken down and rebuilt. The sooner the better.
michelaspiteri@gmail.com