PBS is there to serve you and me – the public – but is it? In an answer to a Freedom of Information request by The Shift News and a decision by the data commissioner, PBS said that, since the members of the editorial board “perform very important work”, their names and their remuneration is “not in the public interest” as it might distract them from their work.
It beggars belief that anyone would have come up with such rubbish. Either they are stupid or they think that the rest of us and the data commissioner are raving stupid.
Culture Minister Owen Bonnici, on the other hand, took a different position when asked by Nationalist MP Graham Bencini about the members of the board of directors and of the editorial board of PBS. The minister said that the boards are being reconstituted after the members resigned following the election. Does this mean that currently there is no active editorial board at PBS?
Bencini also asked a more important question. PBS receives an annual sum from the government to help subsidise programmes that fulfil its mission, technically called programmes of extended public service obligation. Bencini asked for reports about how these monies are being distributed. The minister said that he asked for the information to be compiled. Does this mean that such audited reports for 2019, 2020 and 2021 have not been compiled?
Why is this information important for every one of us?
As a public service broadcaster, PBS exists to serve us, not the government. Unlike commercial broadcasters for whom audiences are consumers, PBS should serve audiences as citizens. PBS should, among other things, serve audiences’ needs for information by its investigative journalism, provide quality entertainment, speak truth to power and give a voice to the voiceless.
The editorial board had been set up as the defender of our rights as audiences. I was the first chair of the editorial board set up by the national broadcasting policy. In the appointment letter then minister Austin Gatt clearly said that the board is there to serve the interests of the audiences of PBS. The board was also obliged to send to the government an annual report giving its assessment of how the schedules of the stations run by PBS fulfil or not their public service obligation.
As a public service broadcaster, PBS exists to serve us, not the government- Fr Joe Borg
In the reports – which were always published – my colleagues and I penned, we pulled no punches. We criticised the increasing commercialisation of PBS and the attempts of the board of directors to encroach on the work of the editorial board. We insisted on the strengthening of programmes of public service. We gave statistical proof showing the reduction of political content – mainly government-related items. In one particular year, the leader of the opposition, Alfred Sant, was reported 180 times during the 8pm news bulletin while then prime minister Lawrence Gonzi was reported 157 times.
The policy also obliges PBS to annually compile an audited report of how the government subsidy was distributed among different programmes. Such published lists keep in check any public service broadcaster truly wanting to serve its mission.
We, the people, have the right to all this information.
The problem of PBS, however, is deeper than hiding information. Last October the Centre for Media, Data and Society (CMDS) confirmed that PBS is not a public service but a state broadcaster.
As I stated elsewhere, to have a public service broadcaster we must move away from the present model of ownership. I suggested studying the Swedish model. In this case, the broadcaster will be owned by a foundation representing different sectors of society – including political parties – but funded by public money.
This proposal – one arm of the pincer attack we need to upgrade our media system – quite naturally needs more study but unless PBS is totally divorced from government control we will continue suffering from a destructive democratic deficit.
The other arm of the pincer attack is the radical reform of the Broadcasting Authority. The country has moved on from the stage when the political parties controlled the socio-economic-cultural environment. The board of the Broadcasting Authority should represent Malta of today and not that of yesteryear. Media experts and civil society should have a place on its board.
These two proposals will not solve all our problems but without them we cannot start discussing other issues such as media ownership by political parties and their regulation. These proposals can provide the beginning of a media system that we deserve, including a fair and transparent PBS.