Bias in broadcasting

Xarabank presenter Peppi Azzopardi (left)

In any discussion on political bias in the media one should make two big distinctions: the distinction between public broadcasters and other journalists, and the distinction between expressing political opinions and involvement in electoral campaigning.

Clearly journalists in a private medium and journalists running discussions on public TV are both bound by the call of the profession to be fair and not to follow personal financial agendas. But while the former are bound by the rules or lack of rules of their employer the latter are bound by public service obligations. One of these obligations is that of being perceived as a fair interlocutor for all sides not just of the political divide but also by civil society.

This requires an element of detachment from partisan involvement especially on the eve of a general election.

It also demands commercial detachment on the part of public broadcasting from both government and private entities. This applies to government tenders but also to dealings with the private sector. For how can somebody like an environmentalist expect a fair debate from any production company that is also concurrently engaged in a developer’s PR or marketing campaigns?

Therefore I tend to agree with regulations banning public broadcasters from direct involvement in electoral campaigning, as well as a law banning compromising commercial involvement by public broadcasters or their companies. Still it would be impossible to regulate anyone's private conversations and contacts with other people.  That is why I prefer a situation where anyone's bias is declared.

Therefore  I disagree with the current code forbidding public broadcasters from expressing political opinions. For me this is the case of having an absurd law in place, whose absurdity is used as an excuse not to enforce it even in cases where its application may be warranted. Therefore the law should be changed in a way that it is only applied vis-à-vis political campaigning rather than expressing political opinions as long as these do not conflict with basic democratic norms.

As a consumer I prefer knowing the political orientation of the journalist presenting the programme, than being taken for a ride. So it is no scandal for me that any particular presenter says, ‘I prefer this party from the other’. By fully knowing the presenter’s opinions the consumer is in a better position to watch out for any subtle bias. In this sense neutral presenters are more dangerous as they could easily sway audiences through hidden agendas.

That said, journalists (and not just public broadcasters) are expected not to push their own agenda down people’s throats irrespective of whether this is declared or not. And there is also a difference between expressing a political opinion and using a programme as a vehicle to promote that opinion. But knowing where a presenter stands politically only makes us more wary when they try to do this.

What Malta needs is a greater pool of journalists on the public TV station, which reflects a wider spectrum of legitimate political opinions. We need a balance between the “devil’s advocate” Anglo-Saxon hard-talk style of journalism and the more politically or socially committed Italian style of journalism.

Above all we need more quality. Public journalism is not just about discussions and talking heads but also about probing deep in contracts, tenders and planning permits. Malta lacks something like Rai 3’s Report. Probably Report has an anti-establishment bias. But it is damn good.

But even this would not be enough. PBS should not be run by political appointees. It should be run by people whose loyalty is towards parliament or the President rather than towards the Minister responsible for public broadcasting... even that will not be enough as long as the Broadcasting Authority accepts a situation where the partisan TV stations are expected to balance each other out.

Neither does it make sense that both major political parties operate their own stations and therefore have a vested financial interest in direct competition with other media: including the public broadcaster!

Ultimately governments, as happens everywhere in the world, do try to influence public broadcasters. But while in other European countries governments face hurdles when they try to pull the strings, in Malta government enjoys a free ride.

Once again Malta’s problems are structural and not simply related to the personalities involved. These problems can only be redressed through real political and constitutional reform.