We should have the vision and courage to take the necessary steps to free our Public Broadcasting Services (PBS) from the political bondage that has enslaved it since broadcasting was introduced in Malta by the British Imperial Government in 1935. For 74 years, broadcasting has been used either crudely or subtly by the government of the day as its mouthpiece. Its name has been changed several times, but its structure as a state broadcaster has always remained fundamentally the same: the government of the day appointing and recruiting the people that run it and work for it, the government of the day deciding how much money it should be given and the government of the day supervising its content and programming.
We should create the necessary conditions for our state broadcaster to become a public broadcaster. Quite often there is confusion between the roles of a public broadcaster and that of a state broadcaster. But they have essentially different functions and structures.
Public broadcasting is defined through a carefully articulated legislative framework in which the media is in public hands but management and operations enjoy substantial autonomy. A state broadcaster is driven by political interests while a public broadcaster operates in the public interest. The state broadcaster looks at its audience as voters to capture with the message of its political master, while a public broadcaster considers its audience to be made up of citizens with a diversity of views, which it has to cater to by providing a democratic forum in a credible and unbiased manner. The state broadcaster pushes the agenda of the party in government, while the public broadcaster has editorial independence and can promote a national agenda.
In order for the state broadcaster to stop serving its political master, and for it to become a public broadcaster which would serve the public, we need to give it a structure which guarantees that it is kept at a distance from political and partisan interference. At transformational moments in our political history, the two major parties have found the necessary courage to look beyond their immediate interests and take a stand in the long term interest of the country as a whole. When it mattered, we have stood shoulder to shoulder against our colonial masters. Together we gave birth to the republic. We changed the electoral system to ensure that a political party with the majority of votes obtains the majority of seats. We have set up the Office of the Ombudsman and the National Auditor and to protect them from the control of the government of the day, we have made them accountable to parliament – they must enjoy the support of two thirds of parliamentary members to be selected.
We should do the same if we want to set up an authentic public broadcasting system. The person who runs this system should be chosen by at least two thirds of members of parliament. We should have a parliamentary committee for broadcasting made up of equal representation from government and opposition and chaired by the speaker. This committee will appoint the board of governors after a public call and after a public hearing in parliament, where those interested will have to prove that they have the necessary qualities to steer the public broadcasting system for the common good. Senior management and editorial posts will be filled with a competitive selection process, and people would be chosen on the basis of their professional integrity and competence, and not because of their political and partisan loyalty.
To safeguard the independence of the public broadcasting institution and ensure that it is kept at a distance from the government, it must be given a charter that guarantees its rights and stipulates its duties. Its public financing from license fees and/or taxes must also be established in a transparent manner which allows for it to operate in an autonomous way. But the changes in our national broadcasting system must not be some kind of deal reached behind closed doors between the two major parties.
Government and opposition must get together and write a white paper to discuss the way forward and draw up the required legislative and operational framework after extensive public consultation.
Our country deserves better. When it comes to national broadcasting we should not remain in the category of African, former communist states, pseudo-democracies and one-party systems where broadcasting is still under state control. There are many good and different public broadcasting models to learn from in the European Union. Our resources are very scarce when compared to theirs. But I am sure that even if what we set up will have its limitations and shortcomings, and will certainly not be perfect, it will be much better than what we have had for the past 74 years.
But the size of our country and our available resources are not the major constraints that we have to overcome if we want to liberate our national broadcasting system from its political bondage. There are areas in our political life where we disagree sharply, but national broadcasting should not continue to be one of them. We should share a common vision to create the necessary conditions to allow a genuine public broadcasting system to be born, to flourish and, it is hoped, contribute to our society becoming more open and democratic.
Evarist Bartolo is Labour shadow minister for education
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.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
