|
The deafening silence surrounding the resignation of Michael Mallia as chairman of PBS by both the Ministry and the departing Chairman himself is of concern. It is serious because the resignation and the circumstances surrounding it has plunged the national broadcasting company into chaos. The public must know why he resigned. To date the reason given by the ministry for his resignation is that he was running the organisation outside the policy guidelines set by the Government through the ministry. The controversy revolves round the retention of the services of persons who after resigning had been granted a golden handshake by the company. These facts rightly left the Minister with no alternative but to ask for his resignation. In the name of fair play one awaits the resigning chairman’s version of the facts. Disappointingly, he has opted for the no comment route. The earlier the lid is lifted by the usually loquacious resigning chairman the quicker the station will regain the peoples confidence.
In all fairness, embarking on an overdue restructuring process was a bold initiative carrying inevitable risks. This is the first time that a minister responsible for broadcasting has taken the broadcasting bull by the horns. Previous ministers have been content to commission numerous reports only to be left to gather dust. It is no mean feat to streamline the organisation, to introduce flexible working practises and to reduce the workforce from one hundred and eighty to sixty five with early retirement schemes and the agreement of the union.
However to hail the restructuring process as an unqualified success is an exaggeration. The fall out includes the resignation of the second chairman in fifteen months and a still Head of News vacancy. Now that the economic restructuring is in motion, it needs to be followed by a reappraisal and upgrading of editorial. Herein lies our misgivings as we are far from clear what vision, beyond balancing of the books, the minister, chief executive, board or higher management have for the station. The station still seems in search of its ethos having the right vision is not unachievable. PBS is a national institution. It does not belong to the political parties or the media production houses. Neither does it belong to the government. It belongs to the people who have a right to receive quality, non -partisan and certainly not a DOI and/ or party driven agenda which regrettably they are presently subjected to. A successfully restructuring involves also meeting these benchmarks.
The controversy round PBS goes far beyond policy and personality conflict issues. We fear that what is at stake is the very survival of public broadcasting in the country. In an ever increasing polarised society dominated by the mega-media machine of the two political parties, it is crucial that a public broadcasting system not only survives but thrives as a model of excellence. The newsroom should include the best of the journalistic crop. This service is an essential building block in our democracy. It must be the voice of all the people including those who do not belong to any of the three parties and all the minority groups within our society.
The public service needs above everything else a vision, a public ethos There is a dire need to look at the big picture, what is a public broadcasting service all about? It certainly is not all about just balancing the books, essential as this is especially since for years the company has been a strain on public funds. Government handling of the restructuring process risks giving the perception that it is, albeit unwillingly, giving the kiss of death to the organisation.
There is the growing fear that a weakened PBS will simply strenghten the political stations. The silence of the Labour party only further confirms our suspicions. Stronger political stations will simply lead to increased polarisation.
This is a frightening prospect especially following our European membership where apart from Italy political ownership of media is anathema.
The way forward involves the immediate appointment of a new Chairman. The profile of the person chosen must be that of an honest person who stands up for public broadcasting and has the guts to fend off political interference. A person who in the words of the former Director- General of the BBC ‘cuts the crap and makes it happen’ He must put the station first and not the parties. He must not be the choice of the party in Government neither the consensus choice of both parties choosing together. He must simply be the right man whose profile fits in with what is expected from a person holding one of the hottest seats in the land. He must be capable of defusing political situations and resisting political bullying. He or she must most of all have an independent mind and a commitment to a national approach. The Board of directors must be equally independent-minded, with a Managing Director not a CEO at the helm with sufficient drive to be the mover and shaker of change.
Needless to say this is a tall order, a gargantuan task. The people deserve nothing less.
|
