|
The open confrontation between the editorial board and the board of directors at Public Broadcasting Services is symptomatic of a deep-seated crisis of autonomy that prevails at the national television station.
The conflict rotates round the respective prerogatives, powers and responsibilities of the two entities involved. Essentially, a power struggle is taking place, and the main battlefield is the short list of programmes for next season’s schedule. More specifically, the fact that the same short list was controversially made public by the chairman of the editorial board, John Camilleri.
But the crux of the matter goes far beyond issues of procedure alone. The real bone of contention is that big cheese names were omitted from the short list… and this is what has evidently angered the board of directors and their political masters.
That there is more at stake than internal office politics was evident by the uncharacteristic alacrity of the board of directors’ reaction. Faced with an apparently unilateral decision, PBS Chairman Joe Fenech Conti rushed into publicly declaring that it is the board of directors, and not the editorial board, that has the final say in such matters. In so doing it has in one fell swoop undermined all the authority of the editorial board, and also raised suspicion of overt political interference.
But there is more. By claiming at a press conference that he was motivated by transparency considerations, and especially by admitting that he was worried the short list would be “tampered with” if kept under wraps, the chairman of the editorial board has publicly expressed his mistrust of the board of directors. Effectively, Mr Camilleri’s statement is an inescapable indictment of the extent of political control of the national station.
Much to the credit of the PBS newsroom, the whole incident was given extensive coverage in the evening news bulletin last Thursday. Enough was said for the audience to draw their own conclusions on the mishandling of this whole episode. As a news company, we cannot but praise the publicising of the short list. This is a first for Malta, and whatever the intentions of the editorial board, its behaviour this week has finally lifted the lid on a system, in place for years, whereby the choice of programmes and their anchor persons has always been vetted by the government of the day, regardless of shade or colour.
To party strategists, controlling PBS is a fundamental concern. Its influence as the most listened-to news service in Malta, confirmed by poll after poll, makes of TVM a veritable “power station”: and nobody knows this more than the apparatchiks in both main political parties.
Consequently, decisions to appoint persons with well-known political leanings to strategic positions… including prime time programmes on PBS… are rarely taken out of concern for editorial quality alone. And while this situation is hardly new, this week’s unsightly goings-on have nonetheless exposed the station’s malaise for all to see.
We are encouraged by this struggle between editorial and financial concerns, because ultimately this is what is diminishing the value of the PBS brand: all concern for the bottom line, and none for editorial. In a fast changing world where content is king, PBS must pay more attention to editorial matters, and consequently should be strengthening the autonomy of its editorial board, and not weakening it. Simultaneously, the station’s sustainability must also remain a primary objective. Marrying these two concerns will always be the perennial battle for all media companies.
Hopefully, this messy incident will prompt the company to re-examine its role, its ethos, its very function in a modern day society. Ironically, only a month ago PBS embarked on a re-branding exercise, with changes made to its logo and studio lay-out. But more than a cosmetic intervention of the ‘Arani Issa’ variety, what is really needed at the national station is open-heart surgery.
The overriding ailment at our long-suffering national station is political interference: in its choice of programmes, in its choice of producers, and also its recruitment of staff. No one doubts that there is the necessary talent inside the organisation, both at employee and management level, to offer a truly relevant and worthwhile national service.
But the question remains: is there the political will? |
