The Prime Minister’s wife, Michelle Muscat, gave a public speech last week and reportedly requested the media to cover important projects “no matter who was behind them”. Presumably, she especially also meant the projects of her charity foundation, Marigold. She complained that the media is being used badly to be “negative” and that, as a former media student, she ‘knows exactly what she is talking about’.

“Good journalism does not exist to applaud the charity projects of the Prime Minister’s spouse.” Picture shows Michelle Muscat last Thursday, when the new President was sworn in. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier“Good journalism does not exist to applaud the charity projects of the Prime Minister’s spouse.” Picture shows Michelle Muscat last Thursday, when the new President was sworn in. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

Really, is that what she learnt in her course, that the media should not be ‘negative’? What year or place was that? Gently put, her media training may have missed the target.

If she ever returns to her studies she might want to consider, for example, the UK National Press Awards announced last week.

The Observer won Investigation of the Year on the Cambridge Analytica issue and for its “brilliant exposure of the abuse of digital information, which had far-reaching effects in the public sphere”.

The Campaign of the Year award was given to the Guardian for its Windrush investigation, which “forced the Home Secretary to resign and the government to take steps to rectify past and present injustices”.

The Times (UK) was recognised for its investigation into Oxfam’s sexual exploitation of Haiti earthquake victims.

I could go on, but as Muscat can readily see here, journalism that investigates, which seeks to discover and pre­sent the facts, is highly valued. In doing so, it might dig up some dirt too. ‘Positive’ or ‘negative’ is, quite simply, not the point. True, it is surely no fun for those under scrutiny, but serious, quality journalism makes a significant, valid (positive) contribution to society.

Good journalism does not exist to applaud the charity projects of the Prime Minister’s spouse. Just as Mari­gold does not exist primarily to generate ‘positive’ reports in the media, but to do its good charitable work.

That’s all pretty straightforward. But Muscat reportedly went a step further and informed the nation that the media should not base their reporting “on the agenda of those who lead them”. Now, here I fully agree with her. With this statement, she touched upon a much bigger problem, which is also linked to the planned reform of the Constitution.

Broadcasting plays a fundamental role in the proper functioning of democracy. The free flow of news and information enables citizens to participate and exercise their democratic rights, especially during elections. Television remains a major source of news, and the way in which this is influenced and regulated has a major impact on the attitudes, beliefs and knowledge of viewers.

Achieving electoral success and power is the goal of politicians, not of journalists. Any media student will, or should, know this

Due to the importance of impartial broadcasting for democracy, it is safeguarded through clauses 118 and 119 of the Constitution of Malta. But radical changes in media technology have oc­curred since the Constitution was written. At that time, only public broadcasting existed, and there were no privately owned media stations in Malta providing news, let alone the internet, with its blogs and social media sites or YouTube. It did not envisage pluralism, or the eventual reality that political parties would own stations and newsrooms.

At the time of its drafting, the Constitution could not foresee that audiovisual news content would be accessed on demand, through computers and mobile phones. It is no longer possible to regulate traditional broadcasting without considering other, newer technologies.

The Constitution sets out the manner in which the Broadcasting Authority is appointed. Yet this regulator only oversees television and radio. It is a complete anachronism and should be scrapped and replaced. This requires amending the Constitution, reviewing clauses 118 and 119.

Broadcasting in Malta has always been tied to politics. The first cable radio station in Malta was established in 1935 for political reasons, to counter Italian fascist propaganda on the air waves. In 1957, Malta began receiving television signals from Italy. In 1962, Malta Television began its own broadcasts. The national station, Malta Television (MTV), then Xandir Malta and later Television Malta (TVM), ran the only television newsroom broadcasting in Malta until the 1990s.

This meant that, throughout the 1980s the single local news bulletin, controlled by the government, was not contradicted or counter-balanced. No other broadcaster was permitted to operate in Malta. Attempting to thwart this, the Opposition party had even set up a radio station in Sicily to transmit a different version of the news, which could be heard in Malta.

In 1987 the newly elected Nationalist government set out to introduce media pluralism, moving away from news being controlled by a single source. The Broadcasting Act of 1991 enabled the granting of private broadcasting licences to the two major political parties. They swiftly established radio and television stations, and this strong political party presence in television broadcasting still persists today. Malta is the only EU Member State where political parties own television stations and newsrooms.

Pluralism is crucial. In this small market, it is difficult for private television stations to be financially viable. The party newsrooms only survive because of the fund-raising efforts of the political parties. That’s a whole other complicated story, but in any case it seems that we are stuck with political party stations for now.

Being owned by political parties should not, however, mean that these stations can get away without the same oversight as any other stations. Yet while the Broadcasting Authority acts as watchdog over the impartiality of the public broadcaster, timekeeping every nano-second of news, it conveniently relies on a glitch in the law to close an eye on the party stations as though they do not exist at all. It improbably assumes that their opposite biases make all sides of the story available to the viewer.

This is obviously not reality as we know it, since most people will only watch one news bulletin and therefore only hear one, unbalanced side of the story. No wonder the nation is so politically polaris­ed. The watchdog conveniently wears blinkers so the elephant in the room can happily smash all the china.

So it is right to insist that journalists should not base their agendas on those who lead them. Their agendas should be based on uncovering and presenting to the public the facts about what is going on. They are not there to twist these facts or to smear their opponents with half-truths. Achieving electoral success and power is the goal of politicians, not of journalists. Any media student will, or should, know this.

The worst offenders, needless to say, in this muddle of agendas and bad journa­listic practice, are the two political party stations and their staff. This is where the scrutiny should lie. The Constitution and the Act both need amending. Any new clauses on safeguarding the provision of information and news to citizens through the media must aim to ensure that the current warped media scenario will somehow be straightened out.

petracdingli@gmail.com

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.