Wednesday, 14th November 2007
A priest who does not believe in God
I am a priest. How would you react were I to write that I don't believe in God or in Her beneficial presence in the history of humanity? Or if I say that I strongly suspect that the world would be a better place without Her?
Though there is no limit to the wisdom and stupidities that are written and broadcast by priests today I guess that you would be somewhat surprised. No need to worry about me. I believe in God and in Her salutary presence.
But let me make another revelation that will, perhaps, surprise some.
I have been active in the media for more years than I care to remember. I worked as a journalist, produced for TV and still present and produce for radio, built and run RTK for years along with a printing press and publishing house, I set up a weekly newspaper and was its editor for some years, teach communication studies at the University, was the first Chairman of the Editorial Board of PBS, am the editor of Campus FM , am the Audiovisual Policy Advisor to the Minister for Culture.... OK, OK the list is long enough to persuade you that my life is somewhat connected to this latter day electronic god or family of gods called the Mass Media. (Molock was like chicken feed compared to its power.)
Now for the revelation: I doubt whether the media's role in our culture is mainly beneficial. I strongly suspect that the world would be a better place without most of the present media structures and content. And in this scenario I pick on TV as the main culprit.
Let me say something about my apostasy.
At one point people believed that television provided viewers with a neutral channel that communicated reality. Television was at their service.
Today this perspective has been turned upside down. Television is reality or, at least TV believes so. So do most of us. At one time we used to look at TV and when it did not reflect reality we would have said zinn. (You need as many grey hairs as I have to remember and understand that one.) Today we look at the way we live and if it does not reflect TV's portrayal of life we feel that there is something wrong with us. More and more people feel obliged to adapt themselves the whims, logic and worldview of TV.
A story is told of a woman who was walking around with her baby. "What a beautiful baby", complimented a friend. "That's nothing" the proud mother answered, "wait till I show you his video!" Exaggeration? I doubt it.
All of us still remember the tragic terrorist attack against the twin towers of New York and the Pentagon on that fateful September afternoon (Maltatime). Most probably that atrocity would never have happened if live TV was not around. Its value for the murderers was their coverage on live TV. And the TV coverage was in many ways an example of life copying the media.
Read some of the comments made by media commentators.
One described the panicked crowds as "a horror film running in overdrive, jumping frames and cutting in and out." Ashleigh Banfield of MSNBC commented: "I don't know how to describe this to you ... it was like driving through a movie set." Dan Cohen, a Fox News Channel producer told the Associated Press: "It now looks like the show M.A.S.H." Tom Shales, television writer for the Washington Post,and his counterpart at the L.A. Times, Howard Rosenberg, both referenced two films created more than 20 years apart. "It looked like scenes from such movies as The Towering Inferno and Independence Day."
Outed ...at last
So when the editor of the timesofmalta.com asked me to start writing weekly in this new e-paper I thought that it was about time to make this public confession and declare my apostasy. I will put on neither sack cloth nor ashes on my forehead. Instead I will do a tougher kind of penance. I will regularly use this column to attack the god I adored so much in recent years. This column (apologies for using on this medium a term taken from the good old fashioned print medium) will regularly take the media to task.
On the other occasions when I do not feel so masochistically inclined I will turn my attention to other topics.
Politics? Isn't there already too much written and broadcast about it? Should I add my two euro cents to the debate? When I was at PBS together with my colleagues on the Editorial Board and PBS journalists we tried to lessen the political content in the news bulletins. I will give just two examples of what we succeeded in doing. The number of items about the Government and political parties went down from 1212 in 2004 to 885 in 2005 - a decrease of 27% in one year!. According to the BA annual report 47% of all local items broadcast in the main news bulletin on TVM during 2000 was made up of Government/political items. During 2005 this percentage went down to 37%. Given that PBS has to broadcast hours over hours of the Budget debate we decided to restrict the discussion of the budget to one programme produced by the newsroom and only one other prime time programme. This year it seems that all restrain was thrown out with the wind.
Given that kind of background do not expect a lot of direct local partisan politics in this blog. (You see, I am not so old fashioned that I do not know the latest jargon!) But the occasional incursion into the field I promise as well.
The Church will be a topic visited more than politics since I think I know about the former more than I know about the latter ... or so I think. I here declare an interest. I love her; but my love is big enough to avoid pampering her.
Since sometimes times some things of some import happen in lands not covered by the territory of din l-art helwa, I guess I have to comment on them on the odd occasions.
Other topics? Anything that strikes my fancy from time to time, whether momentous or minor will find its place in the virtual space. If I like it or hate it I will write about it.
Hope you will like it or hate it enough to read it and react to it as well.
RSS
Comments
that need to be brought out from under the carpet? On the local
broadcasting scenario, might I refer your readers to a satirical piece you
had written in this very newspaper some years ago. Perhaps it should be
revisited and taken much more seriously! For ease of reference I'm taking
the liberty of reproducing it here below:
The following article appeared in The Times of 25.3.99
Talking Point/Opinion
Dossier dream television
By Joseph Borg
Government officials, members of the Board of the Broadcasting Authority
and top executives from PBS, Net TV and Super One TV have agreed in
principle with the main recommendations of a confidential report called
"Dossier DREAM TV". Currently they are working out the technical and
financial details of this ambitious project. This Dossier was compiled by
a team of experts representing all four parties. The following are the
main recommendations of this Dossier:
1. Super One TV, Net TV and the Community Channel will cease broadcasting
but both political parties will keep a video production unit and a news
department.
2. The television services of the PBS will comprise two frequencies each
of which will be given the same importance but with different focus of
interest. Each station will transmit its services terrestially. It will
also be available on cable.
3. One frequency will be called PBS TV while the other will be called
DREAM TV. The former will provide a full service format – information,
entertainment and cultural programmes – while DREAM TV will emphasise
current affairs, discussion programmes, talk shows, documentaries and
politics – local and foreign. The 8.00p.m and 11.00pm news programmes
presently shown on TVM will still be under the responsibility of PBS TV.
4. DREAM TV will broadcast a news bulletin at 7.30pm and at 8.15p.m. The
former will be produced by the Super One team while the latter will be
produced by the Net group. Both teams will each produce one current
affairs programme and one discussion/talk programme every week. The two
groups together will once a week co-produce a talk show called
ANTAGONISTI. The two groups can, if they so chose, co-produce any of the
other programmes under their responsibility.
5. During local or national electoral campaigns each production group will
be asked to produce special programmes on DREAM TV. The party political
broadcasts scheme will be only transmitted on DREAM TV.
6. The content of the rest of the air-time on DREAM TV will be the
responsibility of the PBS.
7. A slant will be permitted in the news and current affairs programmes
broadcast on DREAM TV but this will only be permitted within the existing
guidelines of the Broadcasting Authority and current legislation. The
authority of the BA in this area will be emphasised.
8. News and current affairs programmes on PBS TV will have to strictly
follow the "balance and impartiality" guidelines currently in vigore.
9. The personnel, financial and other costs of the news bulletins, current
affairs and discussion programmes on DREAM TV will be the responsibility
of the group that produces them. They will also shoulder the legal and
editorial obligations. But each group will be able to sell advertising
time immediately before, after and during breaks in the bulletins and
programmes. Besides, both political production houses will the given the
right of first refusal on all programmes farmed out by PBS either on DREAM
TV or on PBS TV.
10. The Broadcasting Authority will immediately initiate discussions with
Alternattiva Demokratika to ensure an adequate presence of the ideas and
personalities.
11. The composition of the Board of PBS will be changed in such a way that
its members will represent several interests and interest groups in the
country including the interests of political parties. The interests of
media consumers will be given paramount importance while choosing Board
members.
Compilers and supporters of "Dossier DREAM TV" say that they take their
inspiration from the system adopted in the Netherlands; although they
differ from it in several respects, some of them important ones. In the
Netherlands there is a system whereby different organisations are assigned
chunks of airtime depending on the number of members they have. e.g. Air
time on Nederland 1 is largely reserved to the Socialist, Catholic and
Protestant organisations.
The project has several advantages for the all parties concerned. The
political parties will be given the possibility of airing their views
without incurring the massive costs that go with the running of a full
time television station. PBS, on the other hand, will have (sort of) rid
itself of its main competitors on the local scene. Net TV and Super One
TV are now "part" of PBS as they will now be broadcasting on its own
frequencies. The reform of PBS can go forward without the recriminations
that its hidden agenda is the benefit of the stations of the political
parties. The viewers will also be the winners. They will now still have
external pluralism (different stations with different focuses) but will be
also guaranteed a station with strict internal pluralism. Pluralism will
be increased if other organisations, e.g. commercial or otherwise, take
over the frequencies vacated One hopes that this reorganisation will raise
standards and increase quality.
Than, all of a sudden, the alarm clock goes off. I open my eyes and look
forward to another busy day where the controversy about public and
political broadcasting will continue to create more heat than light.