For many children the word ‘xarabank’ doesn’t mean a bus, but a television show. Xarabank has been a regular weekly since April 1997. It is 13 years young, and for many months – and years – it topped the list as Malta’s most favourite programme. It lost the title to drama series F’Salib it-Toroq earlier this year, but was quick to bounce back to number one, according to the latest surveys. Stephen Calleja interviews Xarabank’s manager NORMAN VELLA

Why is Xarabank so popular?

It’s not Xarabank that’s popular. It’s all about the content we produce. People watch us only if they are interested in what we’re discussing. There’s no law that obliges the Maltese to watch us. Peppi [Azzopardi] is always telling the team that the only guarantee we have is that his mother will be watching us. We have to convince all the rest every single week.

Being on the national station, your duty is also that of providing a public service. Is Xarabank

fulfilling this role?

Serving the public is the role of every single media person. We know Xarabank is a strange creature. Today it is reporting facts, tomorrow it is providing entertainment, and on another day it’s discussing hot issues. All of this is public service. What’s more, it’s the only programme in Malta that gives everyone the opportunity to have his or her say.

There have been cases when the panel was one-sided…

These were very rare cases. We do our best to avoid this situation but sometimes it happens and we can do little about it. For instance, when we were discussing the feasts reform it was obvious that the panel was going to be dominated by feast enthusiasts. They were the ones who would be affected the most. On the other hand, we had the Church who wanted to have only one representative present. The set-up may have given the impression that the programme was one-sided, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that we stopped someone from participating.

There were times when it was clear that there were too many in the audience supporting one side and too few to support the other…

You are right. But sometimes this is inevitable. Let me give you some examples. Each year we have a programme just after the budget is announced. It happened a couple of times that we could not find a single person who was positive about the measures that were being introduced. What could we do to prevent having an audience hostile to the Finance Minister?

I remember a particular programme where the audience was all made up of people who had just lost their job after their factory closed down. They were facing Prime Minister Gonzi and, understandably, they were very angry. This programme was very one-sided, but if you have to be one-sided to give a voice to these people, then so be it.

Are all those who have something to say allowed to say it?

I will tell you about my own experience with Xarabank before I started working there. In 2004, someone proposed me to the Xarabank producers. They called me, we met, I was listened to, they took notes and I left. After two months I got a phone call and they asked me if I was interested in participating in a one-to-one live interview with Prime Minister Gonzi. I accepted the invitation. I can assure you that no one told me what to ask or what not to ask. I was free to say whatever I wanted. This is the policy we still apply today.

Peppi Azzopardi is also often accused of ‘winding down’ a speaker if he does not like what he is saying …

Peppi, as every other person, has his biases. Normally, when he doesn’t like what someone is saying he challenges him with his own arguments, the end result being that these people get more time on the show! The ‘fil-qosor’ attitude of Peppi is the result of having a lot of people who want to have their say. The end result of not winding down the first speaker would be that we would not have enough time for the second one to speak.

Your productions are sometimes criticised for being biased. How do you defend yourself from this accusation?

In 13 years, Xarabank has never been found guilty of bias and it has never been sued for libel.

But you cannot deny that there is a perception that you are biased…

It’s not a perception. It’s reality. Everyone is biased. If a journalist or a producer who has been looking into a given topic doesn’t form an opinion, he’s either brainless or a hypocrite not to admit it. The important thing is to give space to all opinions. I know you do the same thing in your paper. You have your column to express your thoughts and at the same time you publish articles with opposing views. That is what I call democracy.

How do you pick your guests

on the panel?

We research each and every topic deeply. We read all opinion pieces that are published about a given topic. Then we meet all the people who are interested in taking part. Some of them are handpicked because of what they have written or said; the others are those who call us to participate. Then we choose. The model of the perfect panel is that of a rainbow. An issue doesn’t have only two shades, black or white, blue or red. There is also green, yellow, indigo and so on. What we try to avoid is having too much of the same colour in the panel.

You said you meet all the people who want to take part before the programme is aired. Do you do this to influence what they will say in the programme?

It’s the other way round. This exercise is mainly done to make sure that all the opinions are present. It’s in our interest to have a good discussion and you cannot do that if you don’t have all the angles. Sometimes, after listening to what these people want to say, we give them our own research to help them sustain their argument. But sometimes it’s the other way round. They give us their research and we end up raising points that didn’t cross our minds before meeting these people. In these cases, we were the ones who were influenced. This is very positive.

But don’t you think that by knowing what your guests are going to say you can direct the discussion away from them if what they will say does not fit into the multi-faceted discussion you are trying to create?

The only aim we have is to develop a good discussion. Sometimes it’s important for us to know what people want to say to avoid repetition. You cannot build a puzzle with identical pieces. To be honest, sometimes we succeed and sometimes we don’t. But having a regular audience of around 150,000 people does say something about our success rate.

Sometimes you also take positions. Don’t you think that the fact that you, as a programme, declare your opinions can influence the discussion?

Arguments influence people depending on how strong they are and not according to who pronounces them. Let me give you an example. In January we expressed ourselves in favour of the release of a prisoner who was dying of cancer in prison. We discussed this issue thoroughly, with all the facts and different opinions. People opposing our stand were not shut up. They were invited to voice their arguments. This particular prisoner recently passed away. We still think it is a shame that a government that preaches moral values did not pardon him. At least we are happy that, coincidentally or not, after showing a clandestine interview with him, Salvu was never returned to prison and died in hospital, comforted by his relatives.

If, as you’re saying, Xarabank has the power to influence decisions at the top, then it can be used to influence the public…

If we influence the authorities in favour of the people, we would be the happiest people around. Yes, the media is a powerful tool to make a message come across. If it weren’t, I don’t think that both political parties would have invested so much in having newspapers, Internet sites and radio and television stations. Still, I believe that it’s the logic and the power of the argument that influences people, not the medium. People are not stupid. The same applies for the authorities.

Labour Party exponents and media often accuse you of serving the Nationalist Party and the government…

I’ve just said the Nationalist government has to be ashamed for letting a terminally patient die in custody. However, I repeat, we serve only the public. We have never renounced discussing issues that can embarrass the government. But, at the same time, we will also never renounce discussing issues that might embarrass the Labour Party.

They also accuse you of producing light and entertainment programmes to distract people from the real issues…

I don’t know if you’ve ever watched Labour’s TV station while Xarabank is on. They have an entertainment programme going on at that time. Are they producing it to sidetrack the people too? Or maybe they want to keep people away from Xarabank’s discussions? For me, all this is hogwash. If people want to entertain themselves they will simply choose to do it. Pizzerias and discotheques can also distract people. Should they all be closed?

Anyone who puts forward these arguments is simply insulting people’s intelligence. Having said that, I remind you that we hosted the first ever political debate between Dr Muscat and Dr Gonzi. We’ve been to Haiti to report the human tragedy caused by the earthquake. We were the first in the world to transmit a live edition from St Peter’s Square in Vatican City. Past Xarabank teams covered the terrorist attacks in New York, Beslan and London. Xarabank discussed taboos and started a national debate about them. If this is frivolous and intended to distract the people…

Ok… I get your point. But let’s get back to the bone of contention. It is you who decide what to discuss and when. The accusation here is that you shift the agenda when it suits the government…

If our discussions are irrelevant to people, they will simply not watch us. However, you are right in stating that there are some opinion-makers and politicians who expect that their agenda has to be the people’s agenda. This is arrogance at its best. For instance, we’ve just had programmes about sexual abuse and about the role of cohabitating people in the Catholic Church. These subjects are of utmost importance to a large number of people as much as other issues promoted by politicians are.

In the same way, when people wanted to know what happened in Parliament when the extension to the Delimara power station was being discussed, we dedicated a large chunk of the programme to this. This year we were also the first show to interview Franco Debono after what happened in Parliament in December. And you know what happened two days after that programme? l-orizzont published a blatant lie about us on its front page. They want us to discuss issues that might embarrass the government and when we do they attack us for doing it.

Speaking of topics, is there a particular edition, or topic discussed that, with hindsight, you would not have gone for?

We are only human and we make mistakes. We live in the present but we can learn from the past. That’s why we’re always analysing past programmes and with hindsight I can tell you that more than the choice of topics, we have lots of discussion about the approach we took towards them. Having such a large audience brings with it a lot of responsibility. Discussing ethical issues for us has become the order of the day. We have a lot of good stories in hand which we never show on TV because of different ethical issues. We are more sensitive but far from being perfect. I do have to admit that sometimes we are too sensational.

Is there a programme that, on the other hand, you “missed”, in the sense that you had the opportunity but somehow the moment was lost?

We’ve had occasions when certain happenings that were worth a programme were outshone by bigger events and then they just expired. We’ve had other occasions when we underestimated an issue. Concretely, I think that this year we should have discussed the health issues raised with regard to the extension of the Delimara power station and Piano’s plans for the Valletta project. We missed those boats and others took up these topics. Having said that, the attitude I like most in our team is when something happens in summer and they get really angry that we don’t have the programme going on!

Which topic gave you the

biggest headache?

Every single programme is a mission to accomplish. But it is politics that cause more headaches. And when I say politics, I’m not referring only to Nationalists and Labourites. You find politics in everything. Personally, I will never forget the last general election. Just a month before the campaign kicked off, Labour leader Alfred Sant declined an invitation to take part in a debate with Lawrence Gonzi. In a press conference he compared Xarabank to the Jerry Springer show. Well, he’s obviously entitled to his opinion but for one reason or another, he participated in this ‘Jerry Springer’ show just a fortnight before the election date. I will never forget a single moment of that programme. There was a lot of tension on both sides.

How is it working with

Peppi Azzopardi?

How do you describe him?

I’ve been working with Peppi for nearly five years now and that alone should say a lot. But I will comment further when our ways part, if they ever do. Then, all the things I’ll say will have more value.

But, on a personal level,

is it a positive assessment?

On a personal level Peppi is the type of person who gives you everything he knows. Many say that it’s only your parents who behave in that way. But Peppi does behave like with every member of the team. He obviously has his defects too. We do quarrel a lot. But I cannot criticise him much because, jokingly, my colleagues are always saying that I have become too much like him. Maybe he gave me too much of his mind!

Can Xarabank go on

without him?

He says it can. I say that it can’t. You see, we don’t agree about everything! I see Peppi as the soul of Xarabank but the human body needs other parts to function. We have a fantastic team. Xarabank has had great teams since its birth 13 years ago.

I know that Peppi is a workaholic and that everyone working with him is always under constant pressure…

Yes. But it’s not only Peppi. We work very long hours and we are stressed people. However, we are also very lucky to do what we do. You know, this year I had the honour of collecting two awards, one for Xarabank and one for Bijografiji. When I was standing there I thought about all those people out there who work so hard and whose work is never recognised, never applauded. These people are our public, our clients, our relatives, our friends. I felt obliged to dedicate the honours we were given to them.

[email protected]