The Public Broadcasting Services Limited, as its name suggests, is a public broadcasting service. This means that it is not a commercial service, but a public service and that is why we pay the television licence to PBS. However, PBS is not living up to its name of late, and has shifted its focus to commercial viability rather than on its public service broadcasting mission.
It is all crap when the Minister tries to tell us that PBS must be commercially viable. This is because state aid is allowed by the European Union to public broadcasting because the broadcaster is providing a public service. It is a pity that our so-called communication experts who make part of the board of PBS wag their tail at anything that the Minister says without reprimanding him and reminding him that any public service provider is not there to make money, but to provide a service to the public.
The argument frequently made by PBS – i.e., that it only caters for programmes that make money - is not only illegal and contrary to its mission, articles and memorandum, but it is also a disservice to the public because PBS must provide programmes that fulfil democratic, social or cultural needs within the terms of the Amsterdam Protocol. As a public service it should channel its programmes according to the wishes of the public, even those most vulnerable.
In 1997, the Treaty of Amsterdam was adopted with a specific protocol on public service broadcasting. This confirms that public service broadcasting is “directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism”. It also confirms that Member States are primarily responsible for the organisation and funding of public service broadcasting, but acknowledges that this latitude, although wide, is ultimately bound by Community law.
The EU only comes in when State aid distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods and affects trade between member States. In Malta, the Minister has decided to do away with State aid completely at PBS, and has rendered the public broadcasting station like any commercial station to the extent that there is no distinction between One TV, Net and PBS.
It is amazing how the Malta Broadcasting Authority sees nothing wrong in all this. It has still not realised that PBS is now what it used to be over 20 years ago: where only blue eyed persons can make it, and where quality is being traded for money. The MBA is supposed to be watchdog on broadcasters and particularly on PBS, as a public service provider in order to ensure that all sections of society have a voice in the public service station. But what is happening is that PBS has been hijacked by Where’s Everybody?, Water Melon, and now 26th Frame (of Net fame) so that only those who have the money can make it there.
If 25 years ago, PBS – then known as Xandir Malta – was dominated by Labour faces, the tables have now turned so that the game of musical chairs is now between Net television and PBS: come one season, we see the faces on Net, and come the next season we see the same faces on PBS. Even in certain interviews that are made on current affairs issues, there is no balance between the various political views of the people: it is always Nationalist MPs and Nationalist MEPs.
How this monopoly continues to be allowed by the Malta Broadcasting Authority I do not know. Neither can I tell why the MBA does not remind the Minister that State aid is allowed by EU law and should be encouraged so that the democratic, social and cultural needs of our society are really met by PBS. It seems that MBA sees nothing wrong in having the public service broadcaster dominated by Nationalist people and Nationalist sympathisers, and neither does it see anything wrong in having the PBS look after only the two major political parties.
Of course, the MBA is made up of political appointees appointed by the two major political parties and it is no wonder that they are there to protect the interests of the political party who put them there.
It is about time that the Malta Broadcasting Authority studies to what its extent its rules and regulations are compatible with EU law, because I know for a fact that its definition of “impartiality” is the presence of Net and One TV. The Authority argues that as long as the same news item is provided by the two political stations, than that is impartiality. It also sees nothing wrong in the minority groups being left out completely from the public service scene. I am sure that this is not allowed by the European Union and if the Malta Broadcasting Authority wants to avoid embarrassment before Brussels, it must, from now, ensure that is in full compliance with EU law.
Even certain internet services, though not technically broadcast services, may also receive public funding. In its decision in the BBC Digital curriculum case (N37/2003 of 1/10/2003), for example, the Commission approved UK Funding for BBC provision of online educational services and the BBC additionally offers a range of online information and entertainment services linked to its broadcast services.
In an attempt to try to reduce some of the risks faced by commercial operators considering launching new digital or online services in the United Kingdom, the 2005 UK Government Green Paper on the future of the BBC suggests that any proposed new BBC services should be assessed to see whether their “public value” clearly outweighs any potential adverse “market impact”.
Secondly, an independent authority must monitor the actions of the public service broadcaster to ensure that it conforms to its remit. This authority should be independent not only of the public service broadcaster itself, but also of commercial and governmental interests.
Thirdly, the State funding provided should not go beyond what is necessary to perform the public service tasks. In deciding what is proportionate, it will not be appropriate simply to establish the cost of competing commercial services. This is because public service broadcasters tend to be subject to higher standards in terms of quality and reliability.
Fourthly, in order to prevent cross-subsidisation, public service broadcasters must keep separate accounts for their public service and commercial activities. The BBC, for example, has established an elaborate “fair trading” policy in order to minimise the risk of its commercial subsidiaries obtaining an advantage form public funds.
In Malta, we are still at the primitive stage when public broadcasting and the public broadcasting authority is still the monopoly of the party in government.