Even closer to Harare

The PN government is tightening its grip on the Public Broadcasting Services by appointing Anton Attard as its CEO who has served as the former CEO of NET TV owned by the PN. Our country deserves better. When it comes to national broadcasting the PN is keeping us firmly embedded in the category of African, former communist states, pseudo democracies and one-party systems where broadcasting is still under state control. The PN was very offended last year when I said in Parliament that the way PBS is run is more on the model of the Zimbabwe national TV in Harare than the BBC in London.

The PN clearly lacks 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 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 state 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 and it has to cater for all of them 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.

So that the state broadcaster stops serving its political master and becomes a public broadcaster to serve the public we need to give it a structure that guarantees that it is kept at a distance from political and partisan interference.

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 are chosen because of their professional integrity and competences 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 that allows 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 the draw up the required legislative and operational framework after extensive public consultation.