|
The editorial board of the PBS had the cheek to head its report it released last week, with the title ‘The ethos of public broadcasting under pressure’.
Were Fr. Joe and the other members of the board living in another world, these past thirty years or so? Hadn’t they been well aware that the spirit of public broadcasting had gone to the dogs well prior to the bright idea of setting up this (in)famous editorial board? Has Fr Joe forgotten that some eight years or so ago, he was appointed consultant to the minister responsible for public broadcasting, and to the board of directors of PBS, exactly to relieve the ethos of public broadcasting from its pressure then?
Rather than admitting his total failure throughout the long period of time he had spent at PBS (at a substantial cost to the taxpayers) to stir the state station out of the mess it was in, Joe Borg now seems to be, once again, trying to shy away from his responsibility by pointing fingers at others. Is he trying to run away from the reality of his failures? Doesn’t he feel responsible for the “death” TVM is approaching? A media expert of his standing should have realised that he failed in his mission a long time back, and should have called it a day much earlier.
With more news coming to light every day, it is becoming more evident than ever before, that the resignations of the two top-most positions at PBS were far from coincidental. They seem to be very much related to a serious fall-out with each other and with minister Gatt. In fact, the report also makes reference to Dr Gatt’s giving little attention, if any at all, to Fr Joe’s exchange of correspondence on his clashes with the Board of Directors.
It now also appears evident that Joe Borg’s excuse of ‘mending fences with his archbishop’ could very well have been a poor excuse for his surrendering to defeat. The report has definitely created doubts as to whether Fr Joe’s reason for his resignation was truly related to his mending relations with his church superiors.
What strikes me, however, is that whereas Fr Joe had no qualms to publicly defy the church authority, time and again, on the occasion of his beating the retreat from further ‘participating in the exercise of civil power’ he chose to keep a low a profile as possible. Why? Was it true repentance? If it really was, was he ashamed of swallowing his pride?
Now that Joe Borg’s anticipated new pastures have also come to light, it would be interesting to hear what the Curia’s reactions are likely to be? Hopefully, the Curia may, this time, choose not to remain silent.
We now know that Fr Joe is likely to take up a new advisory post within another ministry. Did Joe Borg negotiate his new post, behind Austin’s back? Was Austin Gatt double-crossed in the process, by the two parties to the deal? Will the PM and minister for Finance, find the money for a further consultant within the tourism ministry? With Fr Joe’s new advisory role, will tourism register the successes our public broadcasting station did? With his anticipated new appointment will he, in fact, be withdrawing from ‘participating in the exercise of civil power’ in terms of Canon Law?
Some believe that the idea of the editorial board was masterminded by none other than Fr Joe Borg, in an endeavour to run the national station himself under cover of this secondary board. There are also rumours that say that the cracks between minister Gatt, and the two ex-chairmen of PBS, started to show after a number of Borg’s recommendations said to favour certain personnel, were opposed and/or fell on deaf ears. This, it is said put Joe in a somewhat embarrassing situation with these individuals.
In my earlier writings on public broadcasting I did warn Dr Gatt that some of his close confidants were ready to pull the carpet from under his feet, and so they did. I also warned him, amongst other things, that the idea of a two-board structure to run the station could only make matters worse.
I believe that the editorial board’s report unequivocally confirms that what I have been harping untiringly, for years on end, on the lack of management skills, and on the poor and shabby standards in our public broadcasting services, was justified and most appropriate.
Incidentally, some time back it was said that the editorial board comprised of five members. Three came from the intellectual class, while the other two, who must have been considered to be of a substandard class, for they were deprived of their voting rights, were senior employees of the PBS. Then, I also criticised this suspicious arrangement for a number of reasons. What is the stand of these two senior officials on the published report? If I am correct they were signatories to last year’s report, but not to this year’s. Are they still members of the board?
John G. Borg-Bartolo
Attard
|
