Public Broadcasting Services chairman and English lecturer Clare Thake Vassallo, speaks about Eurovision, L-Istrina and political balance.

What do you know about television?

Well I can start off like everyone else, as a viewer. I know what I like and what I want to see, which doesn't always translate into what you can produce. So, seeing it from two sides has been a very interesting learning experience.

Why do you think you were appointed to head the State broadcaster?

My background is in cultural studies, semiotics and literature. But I have been on the PBS board, on and off, for 10 years. PBS is a very strange place. You don't just walk in and understand it in five minutes. So I think one of the aims was to have someone who had been there for all these years.

What do you think makes good television?

A lot of things. A bigger budget helps. But it's also about creativity and ideas. I know what I consider as good television but it doesn't mean I'm the average viewer. It depends on who you are. The Maltese are very keen on current affairs, and our current affairs programmes are top quality. But there's also a need for good drama and shows, but they're very, very expensive.

Can we produce good television with our budget?

No. We only get a budget of about €1.2 million from the government - although that is currently being negotiated and we hope to start receiving more eventually. But with this money we have to produce public service obligation programmes of the highest quality. This includes drama, documentaries, children's programmes, current affairs...

So we have to use the money carefully, to make sure the programmes also generate an audience, because we are heavily dependent on advertising. In other words, PBS's working model is that of a commercial station, but in fact it should be less commercial and more public oriented.

We have a tendency to measure ourselves against stations much bigger than us, like Rai and BBC. But we have to keep in mind that the budget of one evening on Rai is what we get in a whole year.

So what has PBS achieved so far?

Well, one of the first things we did was revisit children's programmes. I wasn't happy with the situation because we were fined by the Broadcasting Authority. A public broadcaster has a responsibility, so it's just not right to get fined for children's programmes.

So we created a different format, a children's zone, where we take care of everything and then slot in a number of local and foreign programmes. That way we also have two languages. Language is very important, we need to be functional in both languages and they both need to be perfect.

But there are very few locally produced programmes in English...

That's harder. I'd like to move in the direction of local programmes produced in English.

Do we need them? Is there a demand for it?

It's part of our social reality. These people are also Maltese... we have some strange ideas about being Maltese. Being bicultural, bilingual and international is all part of being Maltese.

Another thing I'm looking at is the north African market. They're interested in our drama and they like to hear Maltese. So we can sell our drama with Arabic subtitles. I've approached three local producers who all said yes to sending a pilot but they haven't come back to us.

So I'm finding the opportunities... We have to look for markets where we can get returns on what we're producing, but we have to look elsewhere. Programmes in English will also help get returns abroad.

How are you gearing for the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest?

Since last year, Eurovision has been completely under the responsibility of the PBS management. It was one of the minister's decisions and I think it was a very good one. Now we can look at it from beginning to end and make more of it. It's something that attracts a huge number of people locally and internationally.

But what have you done?

We've brought in an advisory team this year and created a whole structure of events surrounding the festival. We get a very small budget for Eurosong, only €40,000, which is about 10 euro cents per person. If you saw €0.10c on the floor you wouldn't pick it up.

Why do you think people believe we shouldn't spend a cent on Eurovision?

I think they're under the impression that a lot more is spent. With their 10 euro cents, look at what we're generating. Our chosen singers are viewed by about 38 million people on the night.

Is that our aim? Just to participate, and not win?

I think what we're trying to do is treat the local side as an end in itself. As a station we can give all the singers coverage leading up to the final night. The night itself is going to be the best show we can produce. Last year's was very good - we hope this year will be better, with a large audience. We are also creating other events around it.

So are you spending the €40,000 before the event? What about the money we need to actually take our winners to Eurovision?

Sponsorship. The better the local show, the more sponsorships we can generate, and with the money we can get the singers prepared for the event. This includes wardrobe, hair and backing vocals. For instance, the trip to Moscow last year and the one to Norway this year are not covered by taxpayers' money. The €40,000 is a beginning - to set up the local event and get the team. The rest is all sponsorship.

Last year we placed 22nd in the Eurovision Song Contest. You described it as a good result because we qualified from the semi-final and our singer got to perform twice. Is that our ambition?

The Eurovision Song Contest has evolved. There are many more countries participating and many are investing a lot of money in their participation. We do it on a shoestring budget.

But we have seen singers who won the contest without needing big budgets.

There were no semi-finals at the time. We only placed second and third when...

No, I mean other countries have done very well without putting so much effort, even recently.

Well, I don't know.

Do you dispute that?

I think they put a lot of money. Last year I went to Moscow and the ones who made it put a lot of money into it.

Another event that PBS used to be heavily involved in was the annual charity event L-Istrina, but that has now been passed on to the Malta Community Chest Fund to organise. Last year there was some controversy over the emphasis on prizes, and yet the sum collected was not that great. What do you think went wrong? And why did the MCCF do so much better than PBS this year?

Again, this is something that evolves... L-Istrina is in its 15th year. People were coming out and saying they wanted a different format. But don't forget the prizes were another form of donations.

Don't you think you were wrong when you said we should not do away with prizes?

No, I think it was just a different model. The public wanted something different. When we started L-Istrina, PBS was bigger. There were 250 people employed, now we're only 70 due to the restructuring in 2005.

So last year we had to outsource a lot of the work, the films, the interviews, the sets. We couldn't produce this stuff ourselves. We came to the conclusion that the event was too big for PBS to take over. Since the MCCF was very keen on being involved and could bring in hundreds of volunteers to organise it, it seemed silly for PBS to hold on to it.

The PBS website says airtime will only be given to voluntary organisations that are enrolled with the NGO Commissioner. Why were exceptions made with the Malta Community Chest Fund and Dar tal-Providenza?

For L-Istrina it was very clear that the Social Policy Minister issued a letter making it possible. It was very easy and we went ahead in the normal way. We also abide by the Public Collections Act and a police permit, so we're always covered legally.

Isn't this preferential treatment?

I don't think it's so straightforward. L-Istrina is something we created from the beginning and we want to keep on doing it. I think as a public broadcaster we should be involved in bringing in the big audiences that can make a difference.

Yes, there is the law but it's not for me to say how the law should be enforced and who should be a part of it. From what I understand there are legal reasons that exclude organisations from registering. But it's not my call at all. We're just very keen to help as we have always done. But I would like the way we help to be made easier for us.

Do you know who are the beneficiaries of this year's L-Istrina?

They were briefly mentioned on the day during the programme but we're not involved so we don't have the right to this information.

Does the public have the right to it?

This is not my area. Like I said, I think they were mentioned briefly on the day.

PBS is often accused of being a puppet of the government. Labour deputy leader Toni Abela recently said he would be happy to do away with party stations but only if PBS became more balanced. Do you think PBS has failed to create this political balance?

To say you would do away with party stations because you feel national stations should carry out the parties' jobs is not how it should work. As public broadcaster PBS is the most balanced.

The Broadcasting Authority pays very special attention to the way we operate - our news and current affairs programmes are in fact under full scrutiny. I have no problem with that. But the role of a public broadcaster is not just to carry politics. There's culture, creativity, what's going on in the community, children's programmes, informative programmes...

But do you think PBS ever fails in terms of political balance?

No. We are very much under scrutiny.

Recently, Labour MP Evarist Bartolo compared the situation here to that in Zimbabwe. He said have more of a State broadcaster than a public broadcaster.

That's a strange distinction because those two terms are actually used interchangeably. Public broadcaster means that the public owns the station and I believe that is the case. It is part of the democratic process of the country.

We tend to look at the BBC as one of the models, but there are many. One of Mr Bartolo's points was that the people on the boards are appointed by government. But even the BBC's chairman is appointed by the government. It doesn't mean that because you're appointed you only take decisions approved by the government.

Have you taken any decisions that upset the government?

No, but I don't think I've taken any decisions to upset the opposition either. I think a public station is more than the politics. Over the years we've been very much concerned on this aspect of broadcasting but there is so much more. Since I have an editor to take care of news, and the Broadcasting Authority to scrutinise, I think I should use my time focusing on getting the station other opportunities.

There is talk about a change in the PBS CEO's post. Do you want the current CEO to be retained?

The role of a CEO is the real hands-on person. We are all non- executive and on temporary contracts. It's true I've become more involved, but in the end it's the CEO who runs the show. I think the current CEO is quite keen to be looking for new pastures himself. He's a very capable man. He was the first Maltese to be appointed to the European Broadcasting Unit boards.

PBS has recently been under scrutiny by the Broadcasting Authority for 'decency' or a lack of.

I think the cemetery photo shoot was a lot of hot air over very little. And if photos weren't allowed there, then when the producers went to apply for a permit it should have been turned down at that level. So, once it was allowed, with the only proviso being that there would be no bikinis, I think they abided by that. But when criticism started coming out like "the look in the eyes of the models was too provocative", who's to judge that? I feel that's overstepping acceptable limits.

Good taste is very hard to define in fixed terms. The extremes are more obvious. With protection of minors, we have very strict bands, for example, that certain language and programmes cannot be shown at certain times. But when it comes to adults, personally I believe an adult should be allowed to choose what to see and what to read.

It's very easy with TV. You have your remote control, if you don't like it, you turn it off. The biggest censor is your viewer, who decides straightaway.

Watch excerpts of the interview on www.timesofmalta.com.