I guess that the Big Brother syndrome has now been taken a step further on our local television stations.
If there’s something at which political parties are clueless, this is precisely good television- Ramona Depares
It all started when the Labour party got all uppity about which of its delegates get to represent it during one of the ubiquitous, pre-election run-up television shows.
You know, those shows we love to lap up, precisely because they give us a chance to hang on to every single word uttered by our politicos – not.
I swear that, as much as I love a good debate, when political fever hits Malta, I’d much rather follow a good Criminal Minds re-run.
How often can we bear to see the two opposing camps pitted against each other in front of the camera, spewing the same old clichés as ever?
Though I’m very well aware that on this matter at least, the rest of Malta is not with me.
But I digress. The crux of the matter here is not whether we really want a parade of hopeful politicians taking pride of place on the box right after supper.
The real question is this: to what extent should political parties be allowed to interfere in the nitty-gritty running of these shows?
The Broadcasting Authority seems to think it’s perfectly fine for political parties to call theshots, despite them having no right to do so.
Common practice is for the producers of individual shows to pick their guests. Not so now. The BA laid down the law in no uncertain manner by announcing that parties should decide who to send on these shows, rather than let the producers issue their owninvitations to the politicians of their choice.
Rather ironically – and quite apart from the obvious, “where the heck does this place democracy” questions – this points to a somewhat obvious lack of understanding of how television works on the part of the BA.
It’s all very well and good to point out that we need balanced debate on the national station (the whole debacle was related to PBS’s Bondi+), but let’s not forget that what it all boils down to at the end of the day is good television.
And, judging by several fund-raising shows I’ve been forced to ‘research’ on readers’ behalf (you’re welcome), if there’s something at which political partiesare clueless, this is preciselygood television.
They wouldn’t know good television if it threw the remote control at them. So why, in the name of all that qualifies as mindless entertainment, would the Broadcasting Authority want to trust them with choosing said mindless entertainment for us?
While fairness and neutrality are all very admirable qualities to look for in a televised political show, they certainly don’t rate higher than good television.
Yes, that’s right, and this applies despite the seriousness (if you can really call it that) of the topic.
After all, programmes like The Letterman Show and (God helps us all) Jerry Springer didn’t break all television records by being fair, neutral and nice.
The upshot of all this? If the authority is going to be such a boring puritan, then these shows might as well pack up. Political parties won’t choose the most charismatic/spirited/amusing representatives. Instead, they will choose those who they think are best suited for the topic being discussed. The only problem being that their idea of best-suited doesn’t necessarily coincide with that of the viewer.
rdepares@timesofmalta.com