Over the past several weeks, bewildered citizens have had to put up with an unedifying spectacle at Broadcasting House, Guardamangia – a tug of war between the Board of Directors of the Public Broadcasting Service and the editorial board of this public entity. Meanwhile, there has been a furious outbreak of controversy focusing on one particular current affairs programme - Bondiplus.

All of this goes to confirm that there is something rotten in the public broadcasting sector.

There is much to say about Bondiplus, but much that has been and is still being said is subordinate to the central issue –, which is the way the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is being managed and directed.

So, let’s put Bondiplus aside, for the time being, and concentrate on PBS.

Veritable minefield

Maltese public broadcasting has, traditionally, been a veritable minefield. The decisions and performance of PBS has often been fiercely contested by eagle-eyed politicians and challenged, from time to time, by media watchers. This fomented tension.

Arguably because of this, it was decided, some time ago, to set up an Editorial Board to act as a filter on matters relating to impartiality and balance in broadcasting.

The News Editor of PBS, who carries the legal responsibility for what is broadcast by PBS, became a member of this Board.

The National Broadcasting Policy underpins the PBS editorial board, and lays down that it is the duty of the chairman to assist the News Editor to attend to complaints by the Broadcasting Authority and third parties. It is from the editorial board that guidelines and corrective measures are to flow.

Innovative experiment

This arrangement was innovative. It was meant to be a prop to assist PBS in coping with issues of impartiality and standards and, at the same time, to shore up the station’s editorial competence and independence on news and current affairs matters.

This arrangement did not go down well with the Board of Directors.

There was no protest from the Board when the new set-up was announced and the Editorial Board established.

But, when the crunch came, the Board of Directors decided that it was uber alles.

It decided that the Editorial Board was its subordinate, and proceeded, at its sole discretion, and without consultation, to overrule the decisions of the Editorial Board.

The chairman of the Editorial Board protested publicly but was ignored. Consistently upright, he subsequently resigned.

Unfazed, the Board of Director was determined to show one and all that that it called the shots. It continued to make mincemeat of the principle of editorial competence and independence by reversing certain decisions taken by the editor and the editorial board.

From grotesque to bizarre

In so doing it proceeded from the grotesque to the bizarre. To cock a snook at the Authorities, which conceived the very idea of a separate Editorial Board at PBS, may have given cause for some amusement. To barge in on editorial matters relating to impartiality and balance, as demanded by the Constitution, is altogether another matter.

To do so in a tense, pre-electoral environment is even more remarkable. Or is it?

The drama took a more sinister turn when the Minister responsible for PBS – or is the Cabinet responsible for government policy? - seemed to turn a blind eye to all the above goings-on, and looked the other way.

Whether this was a case of inefficiency or complicity is a matter for speculation.

It makes no difference to the end result. Public broadcasting is in disarray.

Is Maltese democracy being forged on a perverse anvil under our very own nose?

Isn’t there a European perspective on to how to deal swiftly with this aberration?

The issue is as urgent as it is vital to the development of our democratic institutions.

Much as our diverse political factions have an interest in airing their diverse views, there must be a defined sacred ground where the contest is balanced, freedom of expression is respected and truth is safeguarded.

[email protected]