The Malta Independent
“Impartiality on news programmes will be guaranteed by an editorial board appointed by the government.”
“Impartiality on news programmes will be guaranteed by an editorial board appointed by the government.”
The
contradiction could hardly glow brighter in this one-liner in the news
explaining government’s plan for restructuring PBS by reducing its resources and
outsourcing most of the programmes.
Government will guarantee news impartiality on the state-funded channel! This could be as impartial as Dr Joe Mifsud refereeing a Maltese team international football match. Governments of all hues and shades have used PBS as their semi-official mouthpiece.
We have to be highly gullible if we are now to start believing that purely because PBS is being stripped of most of its resources and monitored by a government-appointed board, then the news will suddenly become impartial. Just befriend some of PBS’ journalists and you will hear shameful stories of stupid pressures to give news exposure to items totally devoid of news value but which glorify those who expect to be glorified by public media paid from public funds.
The least that one could expect is that the monitoring board is to have parliamentary representation from both sides, or at least representatives nominated by the Opposition.
But even if this were to be accepted, we would just be duplicating what already exists in the Broadcasting Authority. So while PBS is being restructured it is pertinent to enquire why the Broadcasting Authority is not included in the restructuring package.
If PBS news is meant to be impartial, there is no reason on earth why the Broadcasting Authority, having liberalised the airwaves and given each political party its own media, should stop functioning as a regulator of the whole broadcasting market and instead focus on taking direct responsibility for the community services, including impartial news coverage.
We would thus save money on the duplication of two public service broadcasting organisations and allow private sector operators the same liberty – subject to minimum quality standards in terms of EBU standards – as that enjoyed by the print media.
One could go further and visualise a public service operated directly by the Broadcasting Authority to be funded simply and solely from TV licence revenue, withdrawing from competition for commercial revenue with private sector operators. This would do justice to private operators who provide content without having any access to licence revenue.
But in the final analysis, the restructuring of PBS, though highly visible, is very tangential to the overall economic restructuring that is necessary and which unfortunately continues to be delayed or avoided. What attempts, may I ask, are being made to address the core of the problem in the operation of central government where the excess labour runs in several thousands rather than a couple of hundred?
Why is it that we continue to nibble at the restructuring problem rather than address it at its core? Should observers like me be blamed for thinking that government’s priority in restructuring is not motivated by a logical sequence of the most important down to the least important, but by a sequence which puts priority stress on organisations created by previous Labour governments rather than on central government where there is a majority of pro-government (political) employees?
Why should we accept that because the inefficiencies of the shipyards, Air Malta, PBS and Gozo Channel are more evident through the publication of financial statements drawn up in terms of internationally-accepted accounting standards, these inefficiencies are in fact not dwarfed by much greater inefficiencies within central government which cost many multiples more, but which, unfortunately, are not subject to the same reporting discipline as is applied to commercial organisations?
Solutions can only be perceived and accepted as fair if implemented uniformly and with a logical sense of prioritisation. And certainly those organisations that carry a monopoly status should not go for the easy solution of raising tariffs, as is the case with Gozo Channel, but should first undertake efficiency drives for cuts in the cost of their operation as is the case with PBS. Why use so many different weights and measures between PBS and Gozo Channel?
Unless we go for a total and fair solution, we will continue to nibble at restructuring problems which, as sure as night follows day, will return to haunt us.
Government will guarantee news impartiality on the state-funded channel! This could be as impartial as Dr Joe Mifsud refereeing a Maltese team international football match. Governments of all hues and shades have used PBS as their semi-official mouthpiece.
We have to be highly gullible if we are now to start believing that purely because PBS is being stripped of most of its resources and monitored by a government-appointed board, then the news will suddenly become impartial. Just befriend some of PBS’ journalists and you will hear shameful stories of stupid pressures to give news exposure to items totally devoid of news value but which glorify those who expect to be glorified by public media paid from public funds.
The least that one could expect is that the monitoring board is to have parliamentary representation from both sides, or at least representatives nominated by the Opposition.
But even if this were to be accepted, we would just be duplicating what already exists in the Broadcasting Authority. So while PBS is being restructured it is pertinent to enquire why the Broadcasting Authority is not included in the restructuring package.
If PBS news is meant to be impartial, there is no reason on earth why the Broadcasting Authority, having liberalised the airwaves and given each political party its own media, should stop functioning as a regulator of the whole broadcasting market and instead focus on taking direct responsibility for the community services, including impartial news coverage.
We would thus save money on the duplication of two public service broadcasting organisations and allow private sector operators the same liberty – subject to minimum quality standards in terms of EBU standards – as that enjoyed by the print media.
One could go further and visualise a public service operated directly by the Broadcasting Authority to be funded simply and solely from TV licence revenue, withdrawing from competition for commercial revenue with private sector operators. This would do justice to private operators who provide content without having any access to licence revenue.
But in the final analysis, the restructuring of PBS, though highly visible, is very tangential to the overall economic restructuring that is necessary and which unfortunately continues to be delayed or avoided. What attempts, may I ask, are being made to address the core of the problem in the operation of central government where the excess labour runs in several thousands rather than a couple of hundred?
Why is it that we continue to nibble at the restructuring problem rather than address it at its core? Should observers like me be blamed for thinking that government’s priority in restructuring is not motivated by a logical sequence of the most important down to the least important, but by a sequence which puts priority stress on organisations created by previous Labour governments rather than on central government where there is a majority of pro-government (political) employees?
Why should we accept that because the inefficiencies of the shipyards, Air Malta, PBS and Gozo Channel are more evident through the publication of financial statements drawn up in terms of internationally-accepted accounting standards, these inefficiencies are in fact not dwarfed by much greater inefficiencies within central government which cost many multiples more, but which, unfortunately, are not subject to the same reporting discipline as is applied to commercial organisations?
Solutions can only be perceived and accepted as fair if implemented uniformly and with a logical sense of prioritisation. And certainly those organisations that carry a monopoly status should not go for the easy solution of raising tariffs, as is the case with Gozo Channel, but should first undertake efficiency drives for cuts in the cost of their operation as is the case with PBS. Why use so many different weights and measures between PBS and Gozo Channel?
Unless we go for a total and fair solution, we will continue to nibble at restructuring problems which, as sure as night follows day, will return to haunt us.
No comments:
Post a Comment