|
Is the Broadcasting Authority doing enough to safeguard quality broadcasting in Malta? 
The Constitution of Malta provides in article 119 that it shall be the function of the Broadcasting Authority to ensure that, so far as possible, in such sound and television broadcasting services as may be provided in Malta, due impartiality is preserved in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and that broadcasting facilities and time are fairly apportioned between persons belonging to different political parties.
When this provision was introduced way back in 1964, it applied mainly to the public service broadcaster. Since the advent of pluralism in 1991 and the enactment of the Broadcasting Act, a proviso was added to article 13 (2) of the Broadcasting Act in terms of which it is stated that, except in the case of public broadcasting services, the Broadcasting Authority is empowered to consider the general output of programmes provided by the various broadcasting licensees and contractors, together as a whole, in the following cases whereby: a) sufficient time is given to news and current affairs and that all news given in the programmes (in whatever form) is presented with due impartiality; b) proper proportions of the recorded and other matter included in the programmes are in the Maltese language and reflect Maltese cultural identity; c) the programmes broadcast contain a substantial proportion of matter closely designed to appeal to the interest, tastes and outlook of the general public; and d) due impartiality is preserved in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public
policy.
The authority has during the last decade or so interpreted this proviso to the effect that the political stations balance out each other. In fact, it has to be pointed out that in practice this has worked out in the sense that in several current affairs programmes broadcast on NET TV and Super 1 TV, for instance, a serious effort is made on the part of the respective broadcaster to ensure as far as possible that these programmes provide the viewer with all pertinent views on the topic under discussion, subject to the station’s editorial slant. This reality which has been with us for more than a decade now has been accepted by the authority and the major players in the field and there does not seem to be any significant movement to have the above proviso in the law changed.
Dr Kevin Aquilina is the Broadcasting Authority’s chief executive.
‘Balance’ could be an unwholesome fetish. It implies an obsession with equilibrium. It could be a valuable strategy to avoid political flak and gain credibility but it is likely to force media practitioners to walk a tightrope that restricts their focus. A broad range of viewpoints is required by a media system that is fully pluralistic. Whenever a medium acts as ventriloquist of two monolithic blocs, journalists tend to depict a monochromatic world picture. Balance is simply not enough.
In contrast to the decline of the political press throughout Europe, partisan journalism in Malta developed a new plumage and stronger wings with the advent of private broadcasting 15 years ago. Then, the main institutions wielded their influence on the state to structure the media market in a way that secured their ascendancy. Malta became the only European democracy allowing political parties to privately own radio and television stations reinforcing polarisation, which is so naturalised that it broadly stifles non-partisan analyses and discourages intra-party reflection and transformation. For this reason they are often deemed to be the bêtes noires of our broadcasting.
Partisan journalists have clear missions. Should the BA expect them to give a balanced account for each news item or is this an unrealistic expectation? We can stomach a decipherable slant but we should never tolerate blatant inaccuracies and lies. Repeated harassment of political adversaries, provocations and unabashed unfairness are repulsive. This is where parties should not be given a free hand. The BA, the constitutional body that regulates broadcasters, should monitor partisan content. Whereas it may not be feasible to enforce balance, it could insist on fairness.
The BA needs to ensure that PBS has adequate resources to fill informational gaps and facilitate audience deliberation on national issues via news and current affairs programmes. PBS has a public mission. It should be able to balance between what people want and what people need and so it cannot be run like any market-driven concern. We are in dire need for more information and education and we need less production houses ‘amusing us to death’.
We should point out that the BA directors are nominated by the two political groups. Yet, political responsibility should extend beyond narrow partisan concerns. Blatant partisan agendas may soon boomerang on parties.
Dr Carmen Sammut is a lecturer at the University of Malta.
|
