Making the news

Fr Joe Borg has developed a thick skin that shields him from flak that often hails from political circles. He recently resigned the chair of the editorial board of Public Broadcasting Services Limited, the state broadcaster. Natalino Fenech caught up with him.

You have often been accused of interfering in PBS news bulletins to favour government. You were always reluctant to speak when you were still chairing the editorial board but now you cannot not comment.

I never got involved in any news item to give advantage to some party or other. All that I did was inspired only by a professional understanding of news value, the parameters of the law and the ethos of public service broadcasting. (The newsroom of RTK where I was the chairman and registered editor for eight years was managed in a similar vein). Since 1992, when I got involved in broadcasting, I have never been sanctioned by the Broadcasting Authority. On the contrary, the authority praised the news on RTK.

People ask me how I react to the number of attacks that from time to time are levelled at me. Once criticism is not motivated by good intent, I have learnt to ignore it. So I do not bother to listen to programmes (or read newspaper articles) that attack me when they are just a cheap propaganda exercise. I have the same reaction to articles written in the same vein. As a result I come to know directly only a fraction of what is said or written about me.

But there must have been a number of protests, particularly originating from the Labour side, when you were chairing the editorial board.

The authority's policy states that aggrieved parties should write to the station first with their complaint. When the complaint is justified a remedy is offered. If the aggrieved party is still not satisfied, it can complain to the Broadcasting Authority.

During 2005, for example, we received protests from the three parties. All were happy with the remedies offered. But the MLP, generally, instead of following the procedure, made a public show. I think they did this because they knew that theirs were frivolous complaints but hoped that in this manner they would be putting pressure on journalists in the hope of being given more coverage.

The news bulletins on PBS have less political content than in the past, but don't you think politics still dominate?

There is still an amount of politics but if you see the amount there used to be on Political items on PBS news you would be surprised at how much has been cut down. There were years when up to 40 per cent of the news bulletins was made up of were political items. Now it's down to 27 per cent. It is still too high, but it's consistently going down.

Let me give you some examples. Between January and August 2004, there were 1,212 items related to government and political parties. The number decreased to 885 items in the same period this year.

Although a lot of criticism was levelled at me from the MLP side between January and August of this year, the leader of the opposition featured in TVM's main news bulletins 180 times while the Prime Minister featured 175 times. So much for bias against the MLP. It just shows how unjust the criticism against me was.

The decrease in political items would be more remarkable if one compares it to the PBS news bulletins in 1997, when the MLP was in government. The number of news items related to government and the MLP between January and August 1997 amounted to 1,533, or 28 per cent of the news bulletins. In the same period in 2005, the number of news items related to the government and the PN amounted to 556, or 18 per cent of the news bulletins. Yet Dr Sant says I was manipulating the PBS news! Then what, I ask, was happening at PBS when the Labour Party had practically three times more items in the news?

The Broadcasting Authority report shows that in the whole of 1997, there were 2,129 items related to the government and the MLP. During the whole of 2003 and 2004 - and these were two election years - there were just 2,400 news items related to the government and the PN. Why should I worry about being criticised when what they say flies in the face of truth?

What was the main setback you had at PBS?

Having a news manager would have helped especially because of the role of the editorial board regarding news content. In the fulfilling of this role, the board is only accountable to the regulator. I think Minister Austin Gatt deserves credit for distancing the government from the news by setting up the editorial board as stipulated in the National Broadcasting Policy. I can vouch that we had no interference from the government.

What was the role of the editorial board regarding programming on the channels of PBS?

With programming, the issue was a little more complex. One has to balance between the quality of the programme and the financial aspect as given in the budget. Financial decisions are taken by the board of directors, not by the editorial board I chaired. There is a fine balance between the two aspects. In my opinion this year the balance leaned on the side of the financial considerations at the expense of the public service ethos. This concern of the editorial board was also shared by members of the board of directors.

What or who has led to the most significant change in the broadcasting media over the past 15 years or so?

The Broadcasting Act of 1991 introduced the concept of pluralism and farming out for PBS. The introduction of new stations and Albert Marshall's (then CEO of PBS) decision to broadcast populist programmes on TVM - Xarabank and Ipokriti - led to a change in the viewing patterns of the Maltese. Before that time, Maltese viewers watched more foreign stations than local productions. This has led to a big increase in the number of independent producers.

But don't you think PBS is outsourcing too much of its programming these days?

I agree with the National Broadcasting Policy which says that PBS should outsource most of its programmes. Outsourcing can take many forms. You can sell the time, buy the programmes, have a mix of these two concepts or go into co-productions. This year, PBS has privileged one method - selling of airtime - more than it did last year. This can create a number of problems.

I feel PBS should venture into co-productions and that it should increase its own output productions within the parameters of the policy. PBS has to be careful to nurture new talent and small producers to have a good choice between the productions of small and big producers. But the reform is only a year and a half old and one is still learning.

What are your views on local productions?

It's good to have them, in the right doses and as long as the standard is good. Standards have improved but there are some whose standard is abysmally low.

But if you are talking about PBS, it is the national station and the standards there have to be higher than at other stations. It should be the trend setter. If you look at the schedules of local stations, 85 to 90 per cent are produced locally. In my opinion this is neither sustainable nor desirable.

Do you feel the problems at PBS are common to other stations?

There are many common problems in the industry: lack of talent, lack of funds, too much dependence on sponsors and advertisers to the extent that they influence content.

We are the size of Catania yet we expect the quality we see on RAI. The budget for one or two prime time programmes abroad would equal the budget of one of our TV stations for a whole year. We need more lateral thinking to avoid mediocrity.

Dubbing, the use of formats, more co-productions on the local level, networking with stations overseas and tapping into EU funds for training and productions are a few of the avenues open for the way forward.

What role do you see for the Broadcasting Authority?

The Broadcasting Authority needs to be the televiewer's and listener's guardian. They should look at quality, not just at political balance. Efforts have been made to go in this direction. The policy about the portrayal of vulnerable people and the efforts to raise the quality of children's programmes are two examples.

If you had the power to change anything at PBS, but given the financial constraints that exist, what would you change?

Three things. There is a need to invest in technology. The money, if I am correctly informed, is available. This should bring about a qualitative leap especially in the news.

Second would be the setting up of an effective management structure. After disappointing delays this is now almost there.

The third thing costs no money. All those working for PBS have to be inculcated with the ethos of a public broadcaster which is also the national broadcaster. Making money without having such an ethos is worthless. It's like having a church run on effective and modern management lines but then it does not believe in God.