I cannot understand how our Broadcasting Authority works! It penalises certain programmes for recording a programme in a particular shop, or for an actor drinking from a particular mug, and at the same time it leaves other programmes go buy when such programmes in the long run serve only as an advertisement. The viewer is getting all the more confused because he cannot say whether the programme is a programme or an advertisement. Let me give you some examples. We watch programmes on places of interest abroad and lo and behold, they happen to be the places where the tours are being held. In this case, can the Broadcasting Authority say when are such programmes considered an advertisement?
We watch other programmes like the one on the singer Kevin Borg where his producer Sony was mentioned a couple of times in the programme and lo and behold, such programme was held a week before the singer was coming to Malta to launch his CD! Again, we are being told that the same producers will be showing us a programme on Maltese icon Joseph Calleja when we know that Joseph will be holding a concert in July; and I will not be surprised if this programme is held right before to coincide with the concert.
Even radio stations have a constant habit of playing the songs of that singer who is performing in Malta some time before the concert with a view, obviously, to advertise the singer’s concert in Malta.
I have nothing against this but it is not fair for the Broadcasting Authority to ignore this form of advertising in programmes and at the same time penalise other programmes for a mere triviality. The producers of these programmes ought to be honest with their viewers and inform them about the sponsorships they obtained for these programmes and from whom. In private television stations this is not as bad as those paid by PBS from our taxes. So neither did PBS lift a finger; and if it has not realised that certain programmes it farms out are being rendered into mere advertisements, the viewers have!
If you log in the website of the Broadcasting Authority you see a list of penalties being imposed on producers for trivialities: the sign of the same of a shop, recording in a shop that was easily identifiable. But nowhere in its website do we find anything about whole programmes being used as advertisements.
According to the rules on surreptitious advertising and separation, the clarifications state that when a person is invited during an informative slot on a radio or television programme, that person cannot be associated with the entity which sponsors that same programme or a slot within that programme or which advertises in that programme.
Moreover a programme’s presenter may not participate in an advertisement which promotes a product or service of the same genre discussed during the informative part of the programme. Furthermore, the programme’s set used during the information slot cannot be the same set used during the advertisement. In addition the product or service which is advertised immediately following the conclusion of an information slot and within the first batch of adverts cannot be the same product or service referred to in the information slot.
In its interpretation, the Broadcasting Authority takes the view that during advertisements it is prohibited to refer to the products or services mentioned during the information slot and it is not permissible in the information slot to mention products or services referred to in the adverts which follow that slot.
This means that advertisements in information slots are prohibited whereas whole programmes are not! No wonder many producers are using this loophole in the law to give us programmes that give us the impression they have some country or artist at heart when in the long run it is the sponsors who are doing the talking.
Can’t the Broadcasting Authority investigate this sudden sprouting of such programmes and order the producers to have the decency to tell us that the programme is being launched as a prelude to such a concert and is being sponsored by the promoters of such concert? Of course so far the producers say nothing of the sort but the viewers realise that the timing of these programmes generally always coincide with an event associated with the subject or person in this programme.
I do not understand how the PBS does not see any advertising in this and why it does not lift a finger to enquire whether the producers are receiving any financial rewards for such programmes and if so, why isn’t such money being put in the PBS pockets.
Maybe my eyes are different than those of the producers, of the PBS and of the Broadcasting Authority. And even if they rule that no law is being broken, still the viewers’ perception of these programmes is no longer that of “How nice of them to do a programme on so and so,” but rather: “how much did they get out of doing a programme of so and so?”
This is because you can fool the viewers once, twice, but not all the time. If in, say, the show KC, the actors are taken on a cruise, the viewers could easily associate the sponsor of this cruise; if in Xarabank we will soon see a programme on Joseph Calleja, rest assured that it will be before his concert with Michael Bolton; if on Bla Agenda we see a feature on a particular city, it means that Hamilton Tours have that city in its programme.
Let me repeat I am not against either of this taking place. What I am against is that in these cases it seems that the advertising rules do not apply whereas in other programmes the Broadcasting Authority is quick in punishing those who for some seconds showed the signs of a shop.
This loophole must change as it is not fair to give the perception to the viewers that the subject of a programme is merely a subject at heart to the producers when the only thing at heart is, most of the time, the sponsorship or the income generated from such programme.
The viewers deserve to be treated with respect and as consumers they ought to be informed about any sponsors for such programmes over and above the usual and normal sponsors, whenever this is the case.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
The viewer is getting all the more confused because he cannot say whether the programme is a programme or an advertisement. Let me give you some examples. We watch programmes on places of interest abroad and lo and behold, they happen to be the places where the tours are being held. In this case, can the Broadcasting Authority say when are such programmes considered an advertisement?
