Who is setting the agenda?

Yet, it has long been argued that the media may not tell us what to think but are very effective to tell us WHAT TO THINK ABOUT. As powerful tools for agenda-setters, they influence what we talk about and what remains hidden from public scrutiny. May 29th was a historic day for Malta.

Two very powerful institutions were shaken by a significant earthquake. In spite of all the propaganda resources available to the State and the Church, the pro-divorce movement scored a victory. In their post-mortem, both institutions and several pundits acknowledged that the editorial position of the mainstream media, together with the momentum garnered through the social media, contributed to the victory of the ‘Yes’ campaign.

On the eve of a fierce electoral battle, this result was an eye-opener for the ruling party. It realized that many journalists and media contributors were no longer singing from the same hymn-sheet of the government. Panic-stricken they reacted. As a result, in the past months, the Maltese media environment witnessed bizarre movements and if you were to ask me where we are heading, my answer is BACKWARDS.

During the lazy ‘silly season’, some were busy punishing critical voices. A couple of journalists were delegated ‘safe’ insignificant roles where they may be ignored. Others lost their jobs altogether. Some of the most malleable were co-opted by the governing party. Those we do not bend are brutally attacked, discredited and ridiculed in malicious blogs on the internet and by other subtle and not so subtle means.

Didn’t we all witness the musical chairs within newsrooms and between newsrooms and how some analytical programmes were axed? Shall we conclude that most of these individuals were inconvenient and were replaced by others who are politically expedient? Collusion between the media and agenda setters is not a conspiracy theory. Cracks in the ranks of the powerful elite are now revealing how agendas are being set and framed by the state and its foot soldiers, as in the very interesting revelations in court by some journalists and by politicians like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando.

In the past week we have seen a lot of arguments on whether media exponents should reveal their bias or whether they should pretend they are objective. Having a personal belief is a right; but complicity with power-holders to drive the national agenda is not right. Objectivity may be a myth but fairness is a feasible objective for all journalists; collusion is not fair. Part-taking in strategies to tacitly alienate the public from important issues that may sway the electoral balance, is not only unprofessional; it is unethical, immoral and in the case of individuals who are paid from the national coffers, it is out-rightly undemocratic.

Yes of course, we may all have our ideological leanings but out of respect for audiences, media professionals should not entertain political efforts to poison the information stream and to deliberately cloud people’s perceptions. The current efforts by state agenda setters to influence the mainstream media has several implications, namely that pluralism is under threat. Pluralism is not about licensing a dozen radio stations, and half a dozen television stations. It is about a plurality of viewpoints; it is about diversity.

What is happening here should be noted by the high level inquiry of the European Commission that has just been entrusted to assess press freedoms in all the EU members. This inquiry will look into political interference and the various threats to journalists' rights. I hope that when they examine the situation in Malta, these people will not merely speak to those who will report an idyllic scenario, when it is not. Or to those who selectively blame the depressing scenario on the partisan media.

As critical voices are being weeded out from the mainstream media, their views are being ghettoised and they are either migrating to the internet, to a few newspaper spaces or to the media of the Labour Party. Government strategists are hoping that out-of-sync voices will be lost in the cacophony of online comments and so they will end up reaching a very limited audience.

Strategists are also attacking the credibility of anti-institutional media in an attempt to weaken their impact. Moreover, they are pushing other critical individuals towards the Labour Party media, knowing full well that their influence with floating voters will be weakened. One of the saddest consequences of all this is that there is now little room for civil society to drive its own agendas as all issues are steadily becoming bitterly polarized.

We must also note that at the moment a small party like the Green Party, does not have any power to exert influence on the airwaves as unfortunately it can no longer afford its own radio station or newspaper, as AD did in the past. We must also observe that whenever pluralism is threatened, the need for party media does not diminish as suggested by some commentators. Contrarily their necessity is amplified. Even a big powerful organisation like the Labour Party is having difficulties to put its arguments across and so it has to resort to its own media to state its concerns. We have been here before.

The Nationalist Party first sought to establish its own party radio station in 1979, when it was in the opposition. Then it felt severely disadvantaged as the state crudely, but again arrogantly, monopolized the airtime. So who is setting the national agenda now? Are they elected individuals within the PN structures? Are they un-elected but trusted individuals at Auberge de Castille? Are they well-placed media exponents who have thrown their full weight behind the governing party? I dare not speculate; it is probably an arrangement between the three.

I do know however, that our information stream is poisoned; that public trust in the media is declining rapidly; that efforts to curb pluralistic viewpoints may help politicians to garner some votes but in the long run all this nonsense will boomerang. We are all tired of the navel-gazing and mud-slinging by the prima donnas of the media and political world. People are not entirely gullible. Please give us a Break!