I vividly remember the days in the early 90s when Maltese broadcasting was just about to be thrust open and pluralism introduced. While those of us employed at the national broadcaster got into the spirit of things by making sure our stations were ready for the onslaught (we’d already seen it happen in Italy) that would inevitably result in the poaching of popular presenters and the

replication of programme formats, most people on the Island agreed it was the right move.

After all the Island was coming out of a painful period of political acidity made worse by the use and abuse of national broadcasting from both exterior and interior sources. The lesson had hopefully been learnt and pluralism was the obvious way out of the quagmire. There was much debate and the expectations were high, with the national station being given the chance, at first somewhat reluctantly, not only to compete with the newcomers but also to be the best. That was one tall order. Losing some of its top protagonists and with people’s curiosity quickly shifting towards the new radio and, eventually, television stations, the national broadcaster was destined for a rough ride which it got, before gradually regaining its top status amid an amusing, if muted, return of many of those same protagonists who had earlier gone with the tide of ideological oompah.

There was one fly in the ointment, though. The introduction of pluralism also intentionally paved the way for the emergence of political party stations, with the two major ones instantly tossing their pennies into the hat. Many of us who were for pluralism did not bargain for that. We knew Malta’s politicised society was bound to give these stations the impetus they needed at this early stage of the new broadcasting scenario. When asked, at the time for my own personal view on this, I had no hesitation in declaring my opposition to the very idea of political stations filling the airwaves. Didn’t we have enough politics to deal with 24/7?

But the oompah won and both big parties got their brand-new stations which soon were hot and running, literally overshadowing all other independent stations that had cropped up. Like it or not, the political stations became a reality one had to accept and move on with the increasingly claustrophobic broadcasting domain. In all fairness, there was some magnificent effort on the part of the party stations, which instigated us at Guardamanga to react, readjust, reunite and gradually regain a leading place in the on-going battle for audiences.

End of story? Hardly. While public broadcasting did finally break through the negative cloud and again became the force to be reckoned with, the political stations were slowly settling into their predictable depths. Labour’s One radio and TV outfit ran away with the Nationalist Party’s both when Labour was nestling in Opposition and in power. The reasons for this disparity are various, but people cite creativity, grassroot support and financial acumen as having made the difference.

Whatever the judgements, the Island’s broadcasting set-up is now established and all that matters is the competition therein, including that from the news portals. Recent “time-for-a-rethink” rumblings smack of hypocrisy, more so since it is all too obvious such doubts would not have been expressed had the situation of the two political broadcasting entities been the opposite.

It is even more horrendous on the part of those who seem to be seeking some kind of legalistic redress of the broadcasting scenario by getting the strong footprint of One radio and TV off the playing zone. Instead of promoting and nurturing the challenges of competition, the young electronic injuns of the new millenium piloting this absurd mission want to wield the constitutional hatchet.

What is highly disturbing is the fact that none of the old honkers for pluralism in the 90s have come out defending what they had demanded and eventually created. They just sit shrivelling in their cosy corners, not uttering a single word of protest and keeping their old fervour for pluralism and party concessions frozen away. Where has all the oompah gone?

 

Rewriting history

The world is in the process of rightly rewriting history. Events have been so overwhelming that it is difficult not to sit and think about it. Suddenly, all the sins of big-power domination are being questioned. So-called heroes from the exalted times of colonialism, slavery, illegal invasions, forced regime changes and disgusting genocides – all of them sweetly camouflaged in the history books written by the winners of those forsaken days – are being dethroned at last.

I prefer to see the history books being re-edited to mirror the truths and pinpoint the myths rather than watching statues being toppled, however symbolic that may seem. There is a new awareness and it is not restricted to the Black Lives Matter movement engulfing the world, but how many of our academics and historians are reacting to it all? We may have long happily drifted out of S. Laspina’s sanctified Outlines of Maltese History with its glorifications and gilt-edged coverage of events, with new generations of historians, from Henry Frendo and Dominic Fenech to Mark Montebello, having seen to that, but certainly not enough cleansing has been carried out. There are generational blemishes and inevitable personal innuendos. Where do they stand at this moment in time?

Of course history books vary according to their authors, but there is only one truth. I can give the perfect example of how this can lead to different interpretations. While Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, was more of a “doer”, Buzz Aldrin, who joined him on the lunar surface, was a “thinker”. Their description of what they saw on the moon illustrates the difference in intellectual/temperamental emphasis. Armstrong described the view as “beautiful” while Aldrin called it “magnificent desolation”. Get the message?