“Day and night, the telescreens bruised your ears with statistics proving that people today had more food, more clothes, better houses, better recreations - that they lived longer, worked shorter hours, were bigger, healthier, stronger, happier, more intelligent, better educated.”
One could be mistaken in thinking this is a report about the daily fare offered by the State broadcaster. But, of course, it is a passage from George Orwell’s 1984 and what his character, Winston Smith, had to continuously endure in his flat.
The State broadcaster, under various governments, has for long been His Master’s Voice, reaching the apex when Xandir Malta’s mission had once been unashamedly defined by a late Labour minister as cultivating a socialist generation. PBS, as presently run, may not have descended to such depths, yet, but it is glaringly clear that its aim is one: to paint the government in a good light. For several years, during different administrations, journalists and editors engaged with PBS were favourable and extremely accommodating to the government of the day.
Sometimes, we saw efforts to give a semblance of acceptable journalistic standards and a touch of impartiality. Whether it worked or not remains debatable, however, matters took a nosedive when Norma Saliba became head of news.
She resigned three years later, saying it was for “personal reasons” but implying she was edged out. She remained on the PBS books and given a well-paid job at the new Centre for the Maltese Language. No surprises there.
The post of head of news as such remains vacant but, though not yet officially announced by PBS, two of the youngest members of the PBS newsroom have been named “shift editors”.
According to media reports, they will be empowered to shape and decide on the dissemination of news content across television, radio and online platforms.
It is known that veteran and experienced PBS journalists applied for the job but were not selected, given other titles instead. This already gives rise to questions and suspicions. Especially when considering that one of the chosen two had, apart from working for ONE Productions and for newspapers belonging to the pro-Labour General Workers’ Union, also served as head of communications at the justice ministry.
“Perceptions”, government apologists are likely to shout.
Still, political connections – and in this case it is not perceived connections – are likely to give rise to fears of potential bias or influence, undermining the sort of trust that the public should have in a news organisation.
More so in the case of public broadcasters, which are expected to operate independently, providing unbiased and impartial news coverage.
In an ideal world, public broadcasting stations should strive to be independent, impartial and free from political influence. It seems even the supposedly broadcasting watchdog has lost its teeth – or the will – to ensure that happens.
The ‘shift editor’ may not be the head of news but from what has been reported so far – and in the absence of a detailed explanation by PBS – it appears they will de facto act as such.
Since the head of news, or anybody fulfilling such role, is responsible for editorial decisions and setting the editorial direction, political connections will justifiably lead one to wonder whether such decisions are made independently or under external influence. The matter becomes even more serious at Guardamangia Hill where commitment to journalistic principles and editorial independence were consciously pushed aside and replaced by party loyalty.
Winston Smith’s nightmare may be about to get worse.