Media in chains

Dr Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici's outburst in parliament over junk TV programmes on state television makes for uplifting reading. He cuts a bold figure showing his values to be in the right place. We should have long put an end to the folly of having prime-time programmes on state television run by self-absorbed rating junkies.

He should realise at the same time no one is more responsible than politicians and governments for turning a disproportionate size of the media in Malta into loose canons. This today is an essential ingredient of the thick gruel they cook. Chunks of influential bits and pieces of the media, including leading daily and Sunday newspapers, radio and three out of four television stations, are now owned, controlled, run or influenced by the two main parties. PBS has been the lap dog of governing politicians since the government nationalised the station. It was first used by Labour to try and raise a socialist generation. Now, under what should be a more sober government, it is helping raise a generation of value-shirkers.

We are in greater trouble than many care to admit. The claim Malta is a free and democratic country is only partially true and to a great degree a total myth. It is a fallacy to imagine a country can truly enjoy the benefits of a full democracy unless its media are allowed to gather and pass on, in total freedom and without fear or favour, information which is not tainted by prejudice and bias. Malta is nowhere near being in that class of free nations. Much of what I read in party newspapers and watch on television is sheer propaganda of antediluvian vintage, heaps of which are shamefully prejudiced, factually incorrect, spiteful or very raw. In the main much is badly written or ghastly presented. What allows the pushcart of a media in chains to roll on undisturbed is the fact that skills, testimonials, training, count for nothing compared to the party badge.

In the case of PBS its best-watched programmes are unabashed ratings-driven attempts by populist presenters that seem to have no knowledge of or will to follow the signposts journalists work to. The overall goal is to retch up viewership. Ethics, like having to maintain political independence, hear both sides of a story, ensure claims are latched to documented or provable facts and much more, counts for a hill of beans. The simple fact that a religious rites investigation programme on, say, the BBC wins international awards while its imitation here is judged to be of pure sensational value tells a whole story.

Malta will continue to be dogged by lackluster, divisive and harmful journalism unless a regulator is put in place to road-sign and maintain the limits beyond which no one can trespass. Censorship? Not at all. The media is an institution like the rest. It goes by its own good book which helps it make valid and valuable contributions to the way society informs itself.

There is not one country in Europe that does not employ one type of media regulator or another. Some, like the D Notice Committee in England, bring editors and Ministry of Defence officials together to ensure against the media breaching one's national security. There is a committee in Italy made up in the same way that guarantees against collapsing public tastes. In France, God help journalists if they try and invade a person's privacy. The objective is to ensure against the abuse of freedoms by anyone, journalists included.

Unlike what many think people have as much right not to be duped, fooled or taken for a ride by bullies acting as journalists as much as the media has a right to go about its business of properly informing the public.

If politicians seriously wish to see the Maltese ever enjoying the sweet taste of a free press they can do no worse than release their own newspapers, radio and television stations from the trap.