Yesterday (September 19) The Times commented editorially on the “media realities the Church in Malta must face.” By mere coincidence the editorial was on the eve of the thirty first anniversary of the Media Centre. It was on September 20, 1980 that Archbishop Mercieca signed the document setting up the Media Centre.
Probably no one remembers this event. I feel duty bound to commemorate it.
Together with a few others I had the privilege to be entrusted with the setting up of the Media Centre. We had practically nothing except a dream and the determination to do something positive for the Church in Malta in an area that cried for action. Those in the very first core group included Fr Saviour Chircop, today Dean of the Faculty of Media and Knowledge Sciences, Fr J Borg Micallef, who was then the head of the Catechetical Commission, Ms. Mary Lou Farrugia (now Fava), Mr. Laurence Mizzi and Mr. Alfred Cauchi. Others joined us in the following weeks but I will not mention more names as I am afraid of doing an injustice to those I leave out.
We did not have a dark room but in the first seventeen months we developed 17,000 slides. We did not have a audio studio but we recorded the soundtrack of the tape slides presentations which were then used in different churches and schools. The Centre grew over the years developing into a complex having a printing press, a graphic studio, a publication house, a weekly newspaper, and a bookshop. There were ups and downs. There was a lot of hard work. Long hours were the order of the day. Problems were large but our enthusiasm and determination was larger.
Today I wish to thank all those who toiled so hard to fulfill the mission of the Centre over the years.
I do not know how effective the Media Centre is today. In 2009 a number of decisions were taken which in my opinion led to the dismantling of the Media Centre. I was informed that I my judgement was a mistaken one. Those actions were taken, I was told, so that new strategies could be adopted and new structures built. I wish luck to those devising them and would be happy when these strategies and structures see the light of day.
With that a bit of nostalgia out of the way, let me return to editorial.
The Times’s editorial did not look at what the Church should do or not do with media it owns directly or with media owned by organisations within the Church. However, these media should have a very important role to play. I think that there is room for improvement on what is currently happening. There is lack of synergy and coordination between different structures. This has been the basic problem with Church media organisations over the years. The lack of coordination is sometimes exacerbated by unfair competition which is unacceptable between Church organisations.
Church media organisations should be on the vanguard of the formation of the national agenda and public opinion from the perspective of the social teaching of the Church. They should not be afraid of controversy or attacks. According to a MISCO International Survey RTK had an audience of 47,000 in 1998; an increase of 17,000 on its audiences of 1992. One should remember that during 1998 RTK was under the constant and aggressive attacks of those who wanted to silence it. The station had the guts to hold its ground and audiences increased.
The editorial makes, in my opinion, two very valid points:
1. The preferential treatment that the Church used to get in past years from several media organizations is a thing of the past.
2. In a pluralistic society such as ours there is a wide variety of opinions, attitudes and values. The Church is in competition with all of these.
If I am allowed to add my two euro cent worth, I would suggest that these two points should be taken into consideration by those responsible for the Church’s media strategy. Besides, this should be a pro-active strategy in direct contrast to the siege mentality that today is becoming so popular inside the Church. One should remember that the media activities of the Church should strive to serve contemporary men and women before they serve the institution.
There are two points of criticism I would levy to The Times’s editorial.
1. It is too positive about the media. It twice refers to professional communicators. It is true that there are professionals in the field but it is also true that we are blessed with quite a good number of big headed and self-opinionated dilettantes.
2. The Times refers to “media realities” in the title of its editorial, but in its body it only refers to the journalistic media. Our mediascape is much wider than journalism. This dimension that goes beyond journalism is also very important for the Church in Malta.
There is so much that could and should be done. It would be a great pity if it is not done.
ARRIVA and a friend
A lot has been written about Arriva. I will not bore you with my opinion on the subject. However, I promised an 80-year old friend of mine to bring to the attention of the company his grievances.
He lives in Fleur de Lys and his complaints about the service are never ending and after the “big shake-up” of 9/11. Let me give some examples.
The X6 goes through the district once every hour and is usually ahead of time. As a result people then remain on the stage for a very long time waiting for the next one or go to another stage. On one occasion, for example, he went down to Psaila Street to get bus number 54. This was late in coming. He had to go down to Mannarino Rd to get bus number 43. Quite a bit of excessive exercise for an 80 year old!
Another bus, number 125, passes through Fleur des Lys but this only takes him to Mile End from where he has to take another bus to Valletta. Quite an inconvenience when one considers that before the Arriva era he could get bus number 71 every fifteen minutes and get to Valletta in under 20 minutes.
Things should have gone better not worse.