The Public Broadcasting Services editorial board had originally given the applicants it had shortlisted to be considered for the autumn schedule up till last Tuesday to submit their demo tapes.

Then, as is already public knowledge, the board of directors intervened and ordered all applicants, including those that did not make the editorial board’s shortlist, to provide a demo tape by next Wednesday.

The editorial board still intends to carry on with its work and still has to decide if it will be seeing all the demo tapes provided or only those programmes it had shortlisted.

Speaking to this newspaper, a source close to the editorial board said the procedure abided by was a procedure created jointly by the board of the directors and the editorial board following a seminar for producers held by the board of directors, which had also been approved by the two ministers involved in PBS.

The producers had complained that providing a demo tape for every programme they tendered for was cumbersome and difficult for them. The board of directors and the editorial board had then agreed to hold a two-stage short-list of the programmes and that the demo tape only of those programmes which made it to the second shortlist be submitted.

When the announcement of the first shortlist was made, and programmes such as Bondiplus and L-Ispjun as well as the suggested history programme by Professor Henry Frendo were excluded (not put somewhere down the shortlist, but excluded) all hell broke loose. The board of directors intervened and said that where PBS’s financial interests were involved it could intervene and change the shortlist, and even reinstate some of those that were excluded.

This is hotly disputed by the editorial board. To give just an example: the board has recently intervened with regard to Tista Tkun Int and ordered that programme not to broadcast any more adoption stories because of their traumatising effects.

Imagine, said the editorial board source, if the board had decided to turn down Tista Tkun Int because of its stance on adoption and the PBS board of directors re-inserted the programme due to its financial weight: does that mean that the PBS board of directors has the right to overturn the editorial board’s decision on adoption stories?

There are two ways of looking at the board of directors’ supposed remit on finances.

If a programme is, as is rumoured, costing PBS some Lm2,000 each week, which at 35 programmes a year averages some Lm80,000 a year, is it not the board of directors’ duty to consider if, alternatively, it might employ eight journalists at Lm10,000 each and have them produce news stories?

And if it is the board of directors’ remit to protect the station’s finances, what if this cartel, which seems to enjoy a near monopoly on the station’s prime time, decides to up and move to another station or to, more probably, create a channel on its own and leave PBS high and dry? What will happen to PBS’ finances then, the editorial board source asked.