PBS: New puppets, old strings?

They say figures speak for themselves, but not in Malta. In this world, there are always at least two truths on any matter.

When the Labour Party (PL) called for ‘impartiality’ and ‘balance’ in the state broadcaster’s coverage, PBS reacted in typical political party style claiming the truth was the exact opposite of what the PL was saying.

If loss of public trust were the concern driving PBS’s response, it could have done with some more effort.

There were many other ways in which PBS could have reacted, like explaining that ‘impartiality’ is not limited to the stands taken by the two main political parties and that its public service obligations means it has wider responsibilities.

PBS could have pointed out that ‘balance’ in media coverage is broader than equal coverage of the two main political parties.

PBS chose instead to dismiss the opponent’s argument and reread the figures in its favour. This did not necessarily convince anyone who believes PBS is not impartial or balanced.

On the 50th anniversary of the Broadcasting Authority (BA), President George Abela referred to the need for fairness and impartiality in broadcasting. It could not have been a proud moment during anniversary celebrations when the President stressed the need for the BA to ensure that people could hear all sides of all arguments.

What local TV audiences often get for news is two versions of any story either one of two main political parties created. Political parties dominate the broadcasting landscape in the country, restraining plurality, diversity and freedom of information.

Among the main three local channels, two are owned by the political parties.  In this context, the independence of the state broadcaster is crucial to allow audiences to differentiate between truth and propaganda in TV news.

Government subsidises PBS so it can execute its public service obligations in line with its mission statement “to serve the general public… by striving to be the most creative, inclusive, professional and trusted broadcaster in Malta”.

Audience following is not necessarily a measure of PBS’ success considering the lack of choice of alternatives in the context within which it operates. PBS can claim to be serving its remit when people stop thinking it is nothing more than a puppet.

While media has always been prone to government intervention and influence, the concept of a free media is indispensable to the democratic political process.

This is acknowledged in the National Broadcasting Policy (2004) that lays out a vision for PBS based on a principle that,  “A very strong public service broadcasting organisation is in itself an important feature of a democracy… it is only PBS that can guarantee news and current affairs programmes presented in a balanced and impartial way solely based on news value criteria”.

This is the context within which to assess the accusation that PBS benefits the interests of the party in government.

The accusations PBS faces imply that public funds are being used to serve political interests rather than the public interest. Yet, this news came as no shock. It only voiced widespread belief.

Broadcasting experts and observers who spoke to The Times echoed the call for reform in the area, saying the BA is “not independent enough” and in dire need of “radical revision”. These statements were immediately followed by scepticism about any reform of the BA, which is essentially made up of politicians from both sides and a Chairman nominated by the Prime Minister.

Their scepticism was based on the belief that the two main political parties will not implement the changes necessary. And they are right. The way things are, the two main political parties can continue to feed and sustain the polarisation of society. This works in their interest because it perpetuates their power.

Dr Abela said change in the composition of the BA should be considered. A necessary first step towards any such reform is Prof. Joseph Pirotta’s suggestion that there needs to be wider representation on the BA from broader civil society. The two main political parties can no longer claim to cover the diverse views, beliefs and values that society holds today.

Any reform should actually go a step further and eliminate the presence of political party representatives. Instead, BA members could consist of academics and experts who have earned the public’s trust and can help PBS gain credibility. These individuals’ decisions may still be tainted by political bias, but this can be minimised if their appointment is justified in terms of merit rather than party loyalty.

Some kind of change definitely has to happen, but citizens seem to have accepted a reality where the political parties will not change anything. There is a collective resignation to this belief that is sustained by the discourse the political parties throw at audiences seven days a week through their TV stations and PBS.

Members of the Nationalist Party defend PBS’s output by saying it is better than what the PL offered under Mintoff. That is probably true, but it is certainly not the standard by which government should be measuring media independence.

The independence of the public broadcaster should be assessed in terms of what it ought to be rather than what it was in the past, because any government intervention in the workings of PBS that is aimed to influence rather than inform is a threat in a democratic society.

Caroline Muscat is a journalist writing for major publications in Malta and abroad. She was awarded the European Commission's national prize for journalism against discrimination in 2010. She blogs on My Voice.