Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1283588
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 30 AUGUST 2020 INTERVIEW hear don't end up getting aired on the programme. We will do what we can to help anyway… but we are selective when it comes to what actually gets shown, or not. As a rule, I will first evaluate whether the issue is important enough to be given publicity. And very often, the answer will be 'no'. But the remaining 2% - the very few cases that do end up on the show – those will be cases where the issue itself was clearly important enough; and where it is simply impossible to portray it without making the protagonists' voice heard. To give you an example: in the case of a man who has been unjustly imprisoned, there is only one way to raise public awareness. It's no use writing letters to the authorities. He has to appear on the show. It has to be made public, that: 'this is the man who is in prison for nothing'. As for whether I'm doing this to boost my ratings… obvious- ly, yes, I am. I'd be lying, if I claimed that there was no in- tention, at the back of my mind, to also create a programme that would be interesting enough for people to watch. But if 'getting people to watch Xarabank' also means just bun- dling every issue into the mix, indiscriminately, at the ex- pense of the people involved… then I'd say no. That's not something I would do. In fact, this is what I tell all new Xarabank employees at the first coaching session: 'Peo- ple come first; then the pro- gramme.' That's the premise from which it all begins… Nonetheless, the public po- dium you occupy gives you considerable power over au- diences. Sometimes you give the impression that you are less concerned with informing the public about issues… than with swaying – some might say 'controlling' – public opinion according to your own biases. How do your respond to that sort of criticism? I have always made it clear that I am not unbiased; and I'm not neutral, either. As far as I'm concerned, you will only ever find 'neutral' or 'unbiased' people in a graveyard. The way I see it: you can either bullshit people by pretending to be neutral; or else you can do what I do, and tell them what exactly what you think. In all the programmes we did about joining the EU, for instance, I always used to say from beforehand that I was going to vote 'yes'. I would al- ways declare my bias to the au- dience, in order to allow them to properly form their own opinion. I always try, as far as possi- ble, to be fair [heavy empha- sis] – because the word 'fair' is important – all the same, how- ever, as the presenter of a tel- evision programme… yes, I am biased. There is no such thing as an 'unbiased' TV presenter… Turning to the decision to axe Xarabank: the PBS board has since argued that, after a good 23-year run on the national sta- tion, it was time for a change. Don't they have a point? Do you feel you have some form of automatic right to permanent- ly occupy a prime-time slot on PBS? Not only do I not have any 'automatic right'… but the re- ality was that we had to apply for that slot each year: without ever knowing whether we were going to get it or not. Which is very unfair, mind you. They should at least offer contracts for three years. But that is now a matter for others to take up, not me. So no, I certainly don't feel I have any 'right' to be on PBS. But then again: if you have a programme that, according to the latest Broadcasting Au- thority surveys, is once again the most watched programme on the island… tell me, which station in the world would axe it? We are, after all, in the busi- ness of communicating. I ask anyone in the line of media and communication: if you have someone who commu- nicates well with the people – like a journalist or contributor, whose work is read by everyone – on what basis would you just sack them? Unless, of course, the decision was taken for other reasons… What do you think the 'other reasons' could have been, in Xarabank's case? In all honesty, I don't know… But you're also arguing that the decision was taken to 'si- lence' Xarabank. Do you think the reason was political? And have there been any specific episodes recently – or political issues raised on the show – which you think may have con- tributed to the decision? It's hard to say, because we've probably done more politi- cal episodes over the past few years, than ever before. So many things have happened recently, that it was impossible not to. But to mention one example: when Melvin Theuma testified that he had been given a gov- ernment job – which he didn't even want - he was immedi- ately contradicted by the head of the Civil Service. And when I saw Facebook comments calling for Theu- ma's pardon to be revoked… I smelt a rat. So I did some digging, and within an hour I found a document proving that Theuma had been telling the truth. He really was given a job in the public service. And I made it public, on Xarabank. Now: I'm not saying that this, in particular, was the reason for cancelling the show. But don't tell me that this sort of thing makes Xarabank 'comfortable' for the people in power. Clear- ly, it was the other way round: we were uncomfortable. But so what? That's what we're here for, after all: to make life uncomfortable for the powers that be… PHOTO BY JAMES BIANCHI I have always made it clear that I am not unbiased; and I'm not neutral, either. As far as I'm concerned, you will only ever find 'neutral' or 'unbiased' people in a graveyard