Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1518643
otherwise leave opposition parties like the PN 'voiceless', compared to an all-powerful Labour Party. Ah, but… is that really true, in practice? And how much do stations like NET TV - or One, for that matter – really serve to counterbalance all the 'imbal- ance' (which, by the way, cer- tainly does exist) on the State broadcaster? Looking at the most recent statistics I could find: the an- swer seems to be 'not a whole lot, actually'. The BA's 2023 survey, for instance, notes that: • NET TV is the third most followed TV station [after TVM and 'Foreign Stations'], with 15.7% of all TV viewers mentioning NET TV as one of the TV stations they watched on the previous day. NET TV is watched by all age cohorts aged 21+ years. • ONE is the fourth most fol- lowed TV station, with 15% having watched this station on the previous day. Admittedly, the viewership split is nail-bitingly close – a difference of only 0.7% – but still: the numbers speak for themselves. Currently, NET is watched by more people, across the entire 21+ age bracket, than Labour's One TV. And, well, how much of a difference had that really made, to the PN's current electoral fortunes? Once again, the latest statis- tics – this time, in the form of last Sunday's MT survey – sug- gest 'none at all'. For all its (mil- limetric) media dominance, the Nationalist Party still trails La- bour by around 29,000 votes… that is to say, 2,000 MORE votes, than it trailed Labour by in 2022. Clearly, then, the continued existence of NET TV is hardly helping the PN, to counterbal- ance either One's (supposedly 'weaker') voice, or – even less, I would imagine – TVM's unbal- anced reporting. And the same, by the way, could be said for One TV, back when the shoe was on the other foot. Between 1992 (when media pluralism was first introduced) and 2013 (when Labour finally came into power, after around 25 years in the wilderness), BA surveys used to consistently name One TV as BY FAR the most watched station, after TVM. But while that may in- deed have contributed to La- bour's short-lived 1996 victo- ry… it was the first (and last) time something like that ever actually happened. From '98 onwards, the pat- tern has always been the same. Then as now, the Opposition party complained about 'media imbalance'; then as now, it en- joyed a (much greater) media dominance, compared to the party in government… … and yet, Labour still limped from one electoral defeat to an- other, until the 2013 election (which it arguably won more thanks to social media, than any media it actually owned itself). So much, I suppose, for the 'voice' that PMO is sup- posed to give, to otherwise 'voiceless' opposition parties… Still, the question remains: why doggedly insist on retain- ing a highly-expensive media empire, which is, a) costing your party an arm and a leg (when it doesn't actually have any limbs to even stand on); and b), ultimately serving only to… … wait, that reminds me! I'd almost forgotten about Ques- tion #2, hadn't I? This time, Simon Busuttil even took the trouble to ask it himself: 'Why should political parties have to get into debt to run TV stations, to ensure they have a voice?' I, however, would have phrased it slightly differently: 'Why should political parties that are encumbered by so much debt [in 2022, the PN was revealed to owe €32 million; a figure that has reportedly cost the party €2 million in debt-re- payments, annually, ever since] even be permitted to own any- thing resembling a 'media em- pire', in the first place? Let's face it, folks: if we were talking about private corpo- rations, instead of political parties… both Net and One TV would have been forced to declare bankruptcy years ago; and their combined assets – running into millions of euros' worth of equipment – would probably have been auctioned off to the highest bidder, to ser- vice their otherwise unpayable debt. And the fact that this nev- er happened, in practice – for reasons which, by the way, have never been fully explained (wait, let me guess: political parties are 'above the law', right?) – has had more effects, than merely impoverishing at least one of the two parties concerned. It has also impoverished the entire local media landscape: by depriving private corpora- tions – and pretty much any- one else who is not a political party; and therefore, 'automat- ically immune to all existing debt/competition legislation' - of the space to compete freely, in what it supposed to be a 'free and open market'. Personally, I was under this vague impression that that sort of thing is actually ILLEGAL, in a 21st century EU member state. But then – unlike some other people I could mention – I'm not exactly what would you would call an 'expert on Euro- pean affairs'… am I now? 9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 7 APRIL 2024 OPINION Let's face it, folks: if we were talking about private corporations, instead of political parties… both Net and One TV would have been forced to declare bankruptcy years ago