Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1082991
17 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 17 FEBRUARY 2019 INTERVIEW dar being divided into three pe- riods. So we know, for instance, that this particular programme, or that particular station, will have this or that audience. But the lack of other information puts us in the awkward situa- tion where we cannot estimate the cost of a programme. So, if we are approached by a pro- ducer who claims to be 'in dire straits'… OK, fine, we take his word for it. But we have to know where the problems actually are, if we are going to pinpoint the difficulty. If I know that a current affairs programme costs 100,000 euro – hypothetical fig- ures, naturally – and that, say, an entertainment programme would cost 20,000 euro… prob- ably, I would lobby for more funding for current affairs, be- cause that's where it would be needed the most. But the au- thority doesn't have any of this information, at present. Some- thing else we would need to know is, how much was invest- ed in equipment? Even at EU level, we are sometimes asked to fill out questionnaires about the local broadcasting land- scape. We can supply all the in- formation about audiences; but when it comes to issues such as the turn-over of a local produc- tion company… how can we an- swer that, if we don't have any information? And how can we talk about improving the qual- ity of local programming, if we don't have a clear idea of what it costs to produce a quality pro- gramme? Leaving aside financial issues for the moment: as a consumer of Maltese television and radio, where would you say the main problems lie with regard to quality? First off, let's talk about con- tent. Obviously, much depends on the genre… but in terms of current affairs/discussion programmes – programmes that involve journalism – what stands out most is a general lack of research… possibly because of limited time or re- sources; it could be a one-man show, for instance. But lack of research is definitely one of the areas where improvement is needed. In addition, the me- dia aesthetics angle sometimes leaves a lot to be desired. Light- ing is one example. I'm not an expert in lighting, mind you… I must stress that… but still, it doesn't take an expert to see that lighting, in local produc- tions, is often substandard. There are also issues with set design and studio produc- tions… most of which are sub- jective… but if you ask me, we have to go all the way down to the basic concept of what a television or radio programme even is. At times, you might watch a programme and find yourself thinking… what was the point of all that? What sort of programme did I just watch? I admit I do find myself thinking that, watching local TV: but to be fair, there is also a danger in pigeonholing programmes. Does everything have to be formulaic? Do all discussion programmes have to adhere to a certain pattern…? If it was an issue of being original or creatively different, there wouldn't be a problem, no. But this is not so much about the genre of any given programme… it's more about certain basic fundamentals that we expect from quality productions. To give you an example: around three years ago, the BA commissioned a study on quality in pro- gramme. I was involved in the focus groups, and I remember that all the participants agreed that local television drama was 'not of good quality'… but they all said they watched it just the same. Possibly because there is nothing else on offer in terms of locally produced television drama… … and, as repeatedly evidenced by surveys, Maltese audiences do enjoy watching Maltese television productions… Precisely. But then, when you analyse the content of local dra- ma, you will find that – for ex- ample – in a new episode last- ing 30 minutes, there will only be five minutes of content that can realistically be described as 'new'. The rest will be a rehash of past episodes. It is in part understandable, because the producers have to stretch their material to cover the full an- nual schedule of 39 weeks. So they stretch it, and stretch it, and stretch it… until, in many cases, there will nothing 'new' about it at all. Then, there is the issue of how stations fill up their schedules. How much of their winter schedule is com- posed of repeats? Is it an indi- cation that stations are strug- gling to cope with the amount of airtime? Another question that needs to be asked is: can all these stations realistically afford to be on air from 6am, until midnight? If not, they will only end up filling their sched- ule with teleshopping… which, fair enough, might be a source of revenue for the stations… but then you have telethlons… then more telethlons… then re- peats of the same telethlons… [pause]. This is all part of what I mean by 'quality'. It is not only about individual programmes. In Malta, we have eight free-to- air stations… but sometimes, when I flick through five of them one by one, I find myself watching the same content on all of them. Not just the same type of content; but sometimes, the exact same programme. There may not even be any- thing wrong with the content, in itself. It might even be of high quality. But… it's not re- ally 'pluralism', is it? Pluralism implies that you should have a choice. Pluralism also implies a level playing field; and it is here that Malta's media and broadcasting landscape seems to stand out. Two of Malta's eight TV stations are owned directly by political parties: and it has been past BA policy (going back to a ruling by former chairman Joseph Said Pullicino) to only apply the impartiality proviso on the national broadcaster, PBS… because the two political stations 'balance each other out'. Is that still BA policy today? I don't necessarily agree with that myself. For one thing, the Constitutional obligation of impartiality is applicable to all stations – not just to PBS – but a slant is allowed, as long as there is overall balance and im- partiality. But that's precisely what I'm asking. How do two political stations 'balancing each other out' translate into 'impartiality'? It is not a question of the two political stations 'balancing each other out'. The legislation speaks only about impartiality, and not balance… which are two different concepts altogeth- er. While it should be acknowl- edged that the two big political parties are also two media mo- guls, which have developed cross ownership within the broadcasting media landscape in Malta… in terms of its remit, the Authority has to stress on the concept of impartiality. And impartiality revolves around the concept of fairness, and ensur- ing that all views are presented. Let's not forget that there might be more than two views to any argument. There may be a ten- dency, in our way of thinking, to view most issues as almost always revolving around two sides; but in effect, the Author- ity has to stress that there might be more than two sides to the argument. This is why I disagree that we should talk only about 'balance': it assumes that there can never be more than two sides to a story. On another lev- el, as also stressed in the Broad- casting Act, the obligation is to ensure 'provision of due accu- racy and due impartiality'. That also implies removing personal opinions from the facts and thus distinguishing between facts and opinions… But is that really happening? Comparing the news on PBS to the news on NET or One, and you get the impression that there are different rules being applied. It is as though the impartiality obligations fall squarely on the shoulders of PBS, and not the politically- owned stations... Bear in mind that the national broadcaster, by definition, does have many more obligations than private stations. PBS has a public mission, which other stations do not; for instance, it should produce certain pro- grammes that may not be com- mercially viable – like children's television: which, unfortunate- ly, is sadly lacking, in my opin- ion. The point, however, re- mains that private stations do not have the same obligations as the national broadcaster. As for the question of political ownership of media in the first place; the local broadcasting scenario in Malta is based on the model proposed by Hallin & Mancini, which is a Medi- terranean model where the media is characterised by po- litical issues and conflicts and political mobilisation. In such a model there is the heavy use of the media by the political par- ties. Ultimately, though, as an Authority we have to operate within our established remit. The Broadcasting Act allows private stations to have their own editorial positions; and the BA interprets the proviso of impartiality by considering the whole output of the stations, as indicated in the legislation. PHOTOGRAPHY BY JAMES BIANCHI