PBS needs an earthquake

But it remains to be seen what form of 'change' he actually has in mind. And one government concern which has been crying out for serious reform is Public Broadcasting Services.

Technically the Labour government is bound by an electoral promise to reform this sector, and some movements in this direction have already been made. The appointment of veteran journalist Reno Bugeja to head the newsroom is one example, and there have been changes to the set-up of the PBS board.

But these changes are not systemic: they represent only a limited reshuffle of personnel, while the institution itself - with all its existing work practices, its administrative structures and above all its continued dependence on government largesse for its survival - has remained virtually unchanged.

Naturally, the government has plenty to live up to in its promise of a total overhaul of State broadcasting; and one can even argue that the issue is low priority, considering the importance of other institutional reforms (for instance, the justice system).

But this week we were also reminded of the long-term need for PBS to cut the umbilical cord which keeps it firmly attached to the interests of the government of the day. Once again we saw a prime minister treated to a fawning, almost grovelling interview by a talk-show host (Lou Bondi) who had previously reserved the same treatment for Gonzi when the Nationalist Party called all the shots at PBS.

This is not an encouraging start for the promise of reform of the national station.

Certainly the last thing PBS needs right now is a simple changing of the guard, while it continues to be used to 'normalise' contentious government policies.

Still less do we need a repeat of the last 'reform' of PBS, undertaken in 2005. On that occasion, a radical downsizing of the company turned the seat of public broadcasting into a bottom-line-driven establishment, redesigned to farm out its airtime, with regrettable results for the quality of national programming.

And yet there is no shortage of ideas on how to achieve a thorough and effective reform which addresses the real problems undermining PBS. All Muscat needs to do is revisit a parliamentary debate on the same subject in 2009, when countless proposals were floated but never acted upon.

With hindsight we can understand why the previous government was reluctant to relinquish its propaganda hold over the national station. In fact all governments have used PBS as a political tool, because the advantages of controlling State broadcasting are simply too overwhelming to ignore. This was true in the 1980s, and it was equally true immediately before the last election (even if the extent of the misuse made by the government was considerably worse in the 1980s).

All along, however, the net result has been generations of political agendas disguised as 'news' - often taking the form of a 'litany' of ministerial engagements.

It is time to put all this behind us. The country must take courageous steps to address the need of a public broadcaster which is based on merit and enjoys the trust of society, making it worthy and desirable to be sustained by taxpayers' money.

For any reform to be effective, it must also take into consideration the role and function of the Broadcasting Authority. For too long now, the regulatory authority for television in general has been in the clutches of party politics themselves. The BA has its own management structure, which takes steps and alerts its board of directors, composed of four representatives from the PN and PL and an independent chairman, of breaches in the broadcasting code.

It is this newspaper's view that healthy public broadcasting can only be guaranteed through independence from the government, ideally by means of a board whose stewardship is mandated by democratic and meritocratic principles and whose dedication is towards the general public - not the government of the day.

Having a board of trustees that guides this mission, such as the one employed at the BBC, is one possible way forward. Trustees could be appointed by the president on advice from ministers, through a selective process which is advertised. Above all they should be chosen on merit, as befits an institution that ultimately represents the views of the taxpayers who finance PBS.

So far it is regrettable that the incoming administration seems to be moving in a very different direction. It has given the impression that it intends re-establishing certain cosy arrangements with production houses like Where's Everybody? More specifically, it has given no indication of any intention to strengthen financial and editorial independence from the government, with results that can be seen in the way PBS still seems to think of itself as a notice board of government activities.

The real 'earthquake of change' should be shift towards public, not State, broadcasting; and this means less partisan politics, not more.

It is time we offload this uncomfortable baggage once and for all.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has promised another 'earthquake of change'. Given the degree to which his earlier, identical promise (in 2008) was ignored by the previous government, it would perhaps be wise to take him at this word on this occasion.

But it remains to be seen what form of 'change' he actually has in mind. And one government concern which has been crying out for serious reform is Public Broadcasting Services.

Technically the Labour government is bound by an electoral promise to reform this sector, and some movements in this direction have already been made. The appointment of veteran journalist Reno Bugeja to head the newsroom is one example, and there have been changes to the set-up of the PBS board.

But these changes are not systemic: they represent only a limited reshuffle of personnel, while the institution itself - with all its existing work practices, its administrative structures and above all its continued dependence on government largesse for its survival - has remained virtually unchanged.

Naturally, the government has plenty to live up to in its promise of a total overhaul of State broadcasting; and one can even argue that the issue is low priority, considering the importance of other institutional reforms (for instance, the justice system).

But this week we were also reminded of the long-term need for PBS to cut the umbilical cord which keeps it firmly attached to the interests of the government of the day. Once again we saw a prime minister treated to a fawning, almost grovelling interview by a talk-show host (Lou Bondi) who had previously reserved the same treatment for Gonzi when the Nationalist Party called all the shots at PBS.

This is not an encouraging start for the promise of reform of the national station.

Certainly the last thing PBS needs right now is a simple changing of the guard, while it continues to be used to 'normalise' contentious government policies.

Still less do we need a repeat of the last 'reform' of PBS, undertaken in 2005. On that occasion, a radical downsizing of the company turned the seat of public broadcasting into a bottom-line-driven establishment, redesigned to farm out its airtime, with regrettable results for the quality of national programming.

And yet there is no shortage of ideas on how to achieve a thorough and effective reform which addresses the real problems undermining PBS. All Muscat needs to do is revisit a parliamentary debate on the same subject in 2009, when countless proposals were floated but never acted upon.

With hindsight we can understand why the previous government was reluctant to relinquish its propaganda hold over the national station. In fact all governments have used PBS as a political tool, because the advantages of controlling State broadcasting are simply too overwhelming to ignore. This was true in the 1980s, and it was equally true immediately before the last election (even if the extent of the misuse made by the government was considerably worse in the 1980s).

All along, however, the net result has been generations of political agendas disguised as 'news' - often taking the form of a 'litany' of ministerial engagements.

It is time to put all this behind us. The country must take courageous steps to address the need of a public broadcaster which is based on merit and enjoys the trust of society, making it worthy and desirable to be sustained by taxpayers' money.

For any reform to be effective, it must also take into consideration the role and function of the Broadcasting Authority. For too long now, the regulatory authority for television in general has been in the clutches of party politics themselves. The BA has its own management structure, which takes steps and alerts its board of directors, composed of four representatives from the PN and PL and an independent chairman, of breaches in the broadcasting code.

It is this newspaper's view that healthy public broadcasting can only be guaranteed through independence from the government, ideally by means of a board whose stewardship is mandated by democratic and meritocratic principles and whose dedication is towards the general public - not the government of the day.

Having a board of trustees that guides this mission, such as the one employed at the BBC, is one possible way forward. Trustees could be appointed by the president on advice from ministers, through a selective process which is advertised. Above all they should be chosen on merit, as befits an institution that ultimately represents the views of the taxpayers who finance PBS.

So far it is regrettable that the incoming administration seems to be moving in a very different direction. It has given the impression that it intends re-establishing certain cosy arrangements with production houses like Where's Everybody? More specifically, it has given no indication of any intention to strengthen financial and editorial independence from the government, with results that can be seen in the way PBS still seems to think of itself as a notice board of government activities.

The real 'earthquake of change' should be shift towards public, not State, broadcasting; and this means less partisan politics, not more.

It is time we offload this uncomfortable baggage once and for all.