A new media authority to regulate broadcasting and digital platforms, bereft of the political party stranglehold, was proposed by an independent think tank.
The proposal was made in a discussion paper, ‘Confronting the challenge: innovation in the regulation of broadcasting in Malta’, released yesterday by The Today Public Policy Institute.
Authored by Clare Vassallo and Petra Caruana Dingli, the paper argues that the current weaknesses in the broadcasting sector evolved as “a counter-reaction” to political interference in public broadcasting during the 1980s.
While pluralism in the 1990s ushered in a period of openness it also led to what the authors described as “partitocracy” with the two major parties owning broadcasting stations and controlling the Broadcasting Authority.
The think tank believes addressing the composition of the Broadcasting Authority is the most urgent issue confronting the regulator.
The authority was limited to only five persons chosen by, and in the interests of, the two main political parties, the authors wrote. “This leads to the perception that political interests may be put before the public interest, which erodes trust in the authority, particularly since the two main political parties also own and manage their own media outlets.”
The think tank proposed expanding the board’s composition to include representatives of the wider community, including technical experts, appointed by the President rather than the Prime Minister and the Opposition leader, as things stand today.
It leads to the perception that political interests may be put before public interest
A more radical proposal is to merge the Broadcasting Authority and the Malta Communications Authority into a Media Authority that would regulate broadcasting and telecommunications.
“This authority would be better equipped to approach the new audiovisual environment in the holistic manner which is promoted by the EU,” the authors said, adding such a development was a result of new technologies and consumer patterns.
The new authority should ensure that all television stations, regardless of ownership, should be judged on their own practice and not in relation to, or balanced out by, other television stations, the authors added.
Asked whether this meant controlling information on the internet, the authors insisted this was not the case.
“The communications authority was already responsible for regulating internet service providers and this could remain the same under a merged authority but, at least, there will be one regulator with the necessary expertise to deal with the matter,” Dr Vassallo said.
The interests of minorities should also be safeguarded, the authors said, proposing the creation of a “civil society” TV channel run by the public service broadcaster to give space to voices unrepresented by the political parties.
Dr Vassallo and Dr Caruana Dingli insisted that, while the dominance of television by the two major parties was not desirable, any proposed changes to the broadcasting sector had to ensure that plurality in the provision of news was not undermined.