Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1507380
OH, well. For a second there, I thought the European Parlia- ment must have finally run out of things to meddle with, when it comes to how individual mem- ber states choose to govern their own, internal affairs. But, alas! No such luck, after all. Last Wednesday, we were told that: "a committee of MEPs has approved a draft bill, to FORCE [my emphasis] EU member states to ensure independent structures for public and nation- al broadcasters." As for the bill itself: it's actual- ly part of a much broader media reform, called the European Me- dia Freedom Act – which, by the way, aims to regulate ALL Eu- ropean media: both public and private; and across all existing media platforms, print, TV, ra- dio, online, etc. Sounds reassuring already, doesn't it? But anyway: accord- ing to press reports, the main objective of this reform is "to en- sure plurality and protect media independence from governmen- tal, political, economic or private interests." And on that note... let's just pause for a moment, to admire the sheer enormity of the para- dox that is suddenly staring us all in the face. Here we have something called 'The European PARLIAMENT' – composed, in turn, of things called 'POLITICAL parties' (making it something of a 'polit- ical entity' in itself, wouldn't you say?) – that is trying to 'protect' independent media, from 'inter- ference' by 'governmental, PO- LITICAL, economic, or private interests', etc. And how, pray tell, does it pro- pose to achieve all that, in prac- tice? Why... by 'POLITICALLY INTERFERING in the manage- ment of independent media out- lets', of course! How else...? Having said this, though: if that were the European Media Freedom Act's only flaw... well, it would be still be a major con- cern, quite frankly. As recent events have clearly illustrated: the European Parliament itself is not exactly 'immune' to the in- fluence of certain 'industrial-po- litical lobby-groups', you know (look under 'Qatargate', for fur- ther details.) And if Qatari lobbyists proved capable of using their nation's obscene wealth, to simply buy their way into the European parliamentary decision-making process... what sort of power must the likes of Mark Zucker- berg, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos wield, over the same institution? (And why not? Let's throw in Rupert Murdoch, as well... and every international media mo- gul, alive today, with an eye on expanding their own, private media empire). Personally, I shudder to even imagine what sort of interests those people might have, in in- fluencing national media legisla- tion, across the entire European Union. But there's no need to speculate too much: because it's plain to see, from the amend- ments themselves, who stands to really benefit from these re- forms. Let's take a quick look, shall we? [Note: for the purposes of this article, I will be focusing mainly on how they will impact the local – not European – me- dia circuit: especially, the na- tional broadcaster, PBS]. Right off the bat, we are con- fronted with our second para- dox. Bearing in mind that the original intention was to protect media from 'PRIVATE' inter- ests, just as much as 'political, or governmental'... ... it turns out that what the European Parliament is actu- ally proposing, is to LIMIT the amount of government funding that can be allocated to public broadcasting; and, separately, how much governments can spend on advertising, even in privately-owned media. At the same time, however, the draft bill still specifies that: "Member States will also have to ensure that public service media providers have adequate, sus- tainable and predictable finan- cial resources on a multiannual basis for the fulfilment of their public service remit"; and that "an independent authority will determine the financial needs appropriate for public service media providers." All of which raises a teeny-wee- nie little question. From the out- set, we have no idea what this new, independent authority will decide are the 'appropriate fi- nancial needs', of a company like PBS. We do know, however, that the national broadcaster cur- rently costs the Maltese tax-pay- er around €6 million a year (not counting additional revenue from private-sector advertising, of course). And given that the EP is si- multaneously trying to make it impossible for national govern- ments to ever spend more than a mere fraction (15%) of their advertising budget, on any one media outlet... whilst also set- ting limits, even on how much revenue can be raised from third countries (i.e., outside the EU) ... erm: where, exactly, are all these millions of euros even supposed to come from, anyway? Let's face it: if you remove (or reduce) government expendi- ture, from a television station's revenue stream... there will only be two other avenues of funding left, for both public and private sectors alike. The money is either going to come from private advertising: which would defeat the entire purpose, of a bill that was sup- posed to 'protect public broad- casting from private interests'... ...or else, it's going to be through 'EU funding': in which case... well, we'd have come round full-circle, wouldn't we? Except that it will no longer be 'the national government', pull- ing all the strings behind Malta's State broadcaster. Oh, no: it will be the European Commission itself, instead! (And remember, folks: 'He who pays the piper, calls the tune'...) How charming, I must say! And how very convenient, too... both for the European Union; and al- so – by a huge coincidence, nat- urally – for the 'private interests' (especially the Massively-Mul- tinational Media Corporations, that are already gobbling up out- lets as large as 'Twitter', in single gulps) that will eventually be ex- pected to foot the bill. Coming back to the EPs' stated objectives, then: I can certain- ly see how these proposals will protect independent media from 'governmental' interference... but how are they supposed to protect us, from the much greedier interests of private cor- porations which (unlike govern- ments) have no form of 'public service obligations', whatsoever? That brings us to the most seri- ous flaw, by far, with this entire hare-brained proposal. Apart from instantly exposing all of Europe's media, to the very real threat of being reduced to mere 'private mouthpieces, of oli- garchs and tycoons'... it will also have an incalculably devastat- ing impact, on the content that those public broadcasters actu- ally generate. And nowhere will this decline in standards be more visible, than on Malta's national televi- sion station. To be fair, however: at this point, we must also ask serious questions, about whether TVM – in its current set-up – really IS living up to all its obligations, as a 'public service-provider'. To cite but one example: I my- self have never quite understood why there seem to be just as many commercial breaks (lasting just as long) on TVM, as there maltatoday | SUNDAY • 10 SEPTEMBER 2023 10 OPINION With the EU's new media law, TVM will be reduced to 'The Teleshopping Channel'... Raphael Vassallo