Last week the staff of the Malta Broadcasting Authority rose up against their chairman, Tanya Borg Cardona, demanding her resignation. Whether they were being fair in their judgement of her in this role, I cannot say. But I do know that for many years the authority has perpetuated political polarisation. The structure and aims of the entire institution are screaming out for reform.
Besides licences and advertising, the authority monitors the State television station PBS, ensuring that the two main political parties get equal airtime. This began when there was only one State television station in the country and no internet, but the media scenario has changed completely.
When the two political parties set up their own television stations in the early 1990s they made up their own rules on ethics and content. Since then, the Broadcasting Authority has conveniently assumed that the opposing bias of each station cancels the other out.
One of the underlying reasons for this unhappy state of affairs is the composition of the board. Two members and the chairman are nominated by the Prime Minister, and two by the Opposition leader. They are then appointed by the President of Malta.
Essentially the board is usually limited to five members selected by two political parties. This erodes trust, creating the perception that political party aims may be put before the public interest. This is aggravated by the fact that the parties also own media outlets.
The Broadcasting Authority is a constitutional organ of the State but looks and acts like a dubious bipartisan outfit. It gives the strong impression that it is a closed political shop, protecting its own. It should open up.
It would benefit from having a wider mix on its board, including a range of experts and representatives of different sectors of civil society. With more interests and viewpoints around the table, the focus would move away from partisan priorities.
News programmes should be as balanced and objective as possible. But ideally that should be ensured by balanced, objective and professional presenters, not by the regulator’s stopwatch
The authority should primarily consider the interests of the public, of viewers and listeners, and not of political parties. It should also be seen to do so. It needs to be revisited and reformed, perhaps in the long-awaited constitutional convention. Fair and appropriate regulation in broadcasting is important for democracy. Among other things, fundamental rights such as freedom of expression must be ensured. But times do change and the regulator must keep up to speed.
Timekeeping is hardly a brilliant solution. Last week, Tourism Minister Edward Zammit Lewis and Opposition MP Marthese Portelli appeared together on Xarabank on PBS. Every word they breathed was measured to the last nano-second. Two time-counters were visible on the screen, as though we were watching a bizarre sports match.
A few days later I happened to come across a current affairs programme on a political party station, again with Zammit Lewis. In this case, as minister and the only MP present among five guests, he should have been ready to explain government actions and answer questions. In his role, he is accountable to the public.
This never seems to have crossed his mind. Essentially, Zammit Lewis focused his energy on shouting down and rudely attempting to ridicule the one guest in the studio who openly disagreed with him. The show degenerated into a barrage of accusations, with the minister’s loud voice on his microphone drowning out the words of everyone else.
Sadly, that sort of lopsided shouting match is standard fare on our political party television screens. Here, the Broadcasting Authority stays out of the fray and does nothing, going from one extreme to another.
Today, many shows are available on demand on the internet and on digital television. At the click of a button, you can watch repeats of news programmes and current affairs discussions for as many minutes or hours as you like, until your head falls off. You can watch them on your computer, on your television or on your mobile phone – even simultaneously.
The regulator is out of step with the times. Sure, current affairs and news programmes should be as balanced and objective as possible. But ideally that should be ensured by balanced, objective and professional presenters, not by the regulator’s stopwatch.
Moreover, anybody can present their opinion, biases and all, in a video clip and just upload it on their website, or on social media. You can stage a discussion or interview and upload that as well. News outlets do this all the time, but private individuals or politicians can easily and freely do it too – assuming they can find an audience to watch them.
Where are the stopwatches in all that? Does it still make sense to regulate State television using a timer, with today’s convergence of the media and on-demand viewing? It would be more in the public interest to beef up energy and resources into raising the standards and ethics of journalism, and on all stations.
The content of the internet, television and radio are merging, and will continue changing shape in the years to come. Media technology has moved on, but the Broadcasting Authority is stuck in the past.
petracdingli@gmail.com