The BA and end-all of public discussion

Traditionally, one sure-fire symptom of election fever is a sudden spike in complaints to and by the Broadcasting Authority regarding impartiality on local discussion programmes and news bulletins.

We saw it in 2008 - when the DOI issued a press card to an electoral candidate, who was also 'coached' by a popular TV presenter before a crucial political debate - and then again in 2003, 1998, 1996, etc.

But the origins of this self-propagating controversy can be traced much further back in time: to the 1980s, when the national broadcaster (then called 'Xandir Malta') adopted an unofficial policy to never mention the Opposition by name. Even before, the concern had been equally manifest throughout the pre-Independent 1960s: i.e. when the Broadcasting Authority itself was first set up, ostensibly to ensure fairness in political reportage at a time when Rediffusion (the precursor to all today's mass-media, from TV and radio to internet and wifi) was strictly controlled by the British colonial government.

At a stretch, it is possible to trace the same tensions all the way back to the distant 1930s, too: when the same colonial government first introduced State broadcasting, partly to counterbalance the daily media onslaught of Fascist propaganda from nearby Italy.

But though a general concern with political impartiality has existed, in some form or other, for well over 70 years, the means to achieve it in practice has proved consistently elusive.

Recent events suggest that we are no closer to consensus today than we were in the time of Xandir Malta: a fact which also explains why the state of Maltese broadcasting in general has time and again been cited (among others by MP Franco Debono in parliament) as part of the reason for the present political impasse.

Independence vs regulation

In recent weeks we have witnessed a graphic illustration of how this tension between the two opposing forces concerned - editorial independence versus regulatory imposition - tends to pan out in practice.

For the umpteenth time, the Broadcasting Authority was recently inundated with complaints regarding two of the national broadcaster's flagship programmes: Bondiplus and Xarabank, presented by Lou Bondi and Peppi Azzopardi respectively.

Significantly, these complaints came from both Nationalist and Labour Parties: first the PL objected to an interview with Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi on Xarabank, and was awarded a 10-minute 'right of reply' slot to compensate for the perceived 'imbalance'. Next it was the PN's turn to complain, this time about Bondiplus' interview with Franco Debono... for which the aggrieved party was once again awarded a right of reply on the same programme.

PBS objected to both decisions, with its CEO Anton Attard arguing that the Authority's interference constituted a direct threat to the station's editorial independence.

"The PBS not only disagrees with these two decisions, but sees them as a step back for our country's broadcasting as well as an attack on the station's editorial independence," he said in a statement. "The authority has to go back to the practice established over the past years and start measuring balance and impartiality over the entire schedule of the station".

On its part the authority retorted that PBS's "allegations" were incorrect. "The BA has never changed its assessing methodology and PBS knows this very well, through a number of decisions taken recently in which the same station was proven right."

Viewed outside the context of the tightly controlled political environment that is PBS, both sides appear to have a very valid point. Technically, the Broadcasting Authority is only living up to its official remit by ensuring 'balance' in broadcasting - which in turn forms its main Constitutional raison d'etre.

As for PBS, surely the national station has the right to defend its own editorial integrity, if it feels that excessive regulation undermines its independence. Furthermore, it remains highly debatable whether an interview with only one personality can qualify as an instance of "political imbalance". Surely, both Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and individual MPs like Franco Debono are well within their rights to express their own personal opinions in the form of a one-to-one interview.

Apart from the station's editorial independence, there is after all another issue at stake: the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

But these considerations must also be seen within a wider context: one in which the national station has traditionally been hijacked by the political government of the day and used for purely partisan purposes.

Attard's concerns with editorial independence do appear justified at face value; but one must also question how editorially 'independent' the national station really is, considering how it recently mobilised all its resources (including a full-blown interview with its own news editor, Natalino Fenech) in order to publicly discredit Franco Debono on live TV.

Furthermore, a cursory glance at recent appointments at PBS (starting with Attard himself, a former employee of NET TV) suggests an overwhelming tendency to recruit employees from the machinery of the Nationalist Party - just as former Labour governments had also applied an unwritten policy of exclusionism when it came to appointing apparatchiks of its own.

Time for a reform?

Media analyst Dr Carmen Sammut, who lectures in the Faculty of the Arts at the University of Malta, views the current controversy as the result of unresolved issues that have been simmering in the background for decades.

"The BA does need an overhaul; we've been saying this for years. But there has been no political will to actually undertake this reform," she commented to MaltaToday.

"The result is that, every time an election comes along, broadcasting once again becomes a game of ping-pong between the two sides...."

Dr Sammut acknowledges that this is also the inevitable outcome of our "very idiosyncratic" media landscape - a landscape dominated by politically-owned media houses, which (in contrast to PBS) have been allowed a completely free hand by the same authority that was originally intended to ensure balance in political reporting.

Furthermore, the structures of the BA have remained virtually unchanged since the days of
Rediffusion - despite the enormous technological advancements in the media landscape over the past few decades.

"We need to revise the overall role of the BA in the context of today's media reality. But at the same time it is not enough to just criticise this role only when we disagree with any particular decision. What is needed is a thorough discussion with a view to revamping the authority from scratch."

Nor is it just the BA that needs reform: Sammut argues that the structures of the national station could also use a basic overhaul.

She is not the only one to have raised such concerns of late. Just a few months ago the President of the Republic Dr George Abela echoed an almost identical appeal: arguing that the Broadcasting Authority "was not independent enough" and that there was "dire need (of) a radical reform."

Sammut concurs, though she is not overly optimistic that this will be achieved any time soon.

"These issues have been on the cards for years now, and while there is broad consensus that reform is needed, up to now no one has succeeded in taking the bull by the horns."