A recent Broadcasting Authority survey found that a mere 0.1 per cent of the population, amounting to just roughly 410 people, tune in to the parliamentary debates broadcast on state radio. The statistic, which made the bottom of most news reports on the day it was disseminated, is truly incredible considering the obsession that so many more people have with politics.
To so many of the Maltese, politics and its observation is more than just a spectator sport, it is the national sport. But since there are just 410 people following the nightly parliamentary debates, one questions where all the other thousands of people debating politics garner their information. The answer is perhaps symptomatic of a deeper malaise within the media sphere and the art of political observation.
Television news, even the broadcasters that are more politically inclined, rarely report parliamentary proceedings and only do so when there has been or will be a major debate. Moreover, even if such features were to be made a permanent fixture, the television news format does not allow for extensive coverage.
Similarly, although newspapers have a somewhat more generous format with which to report Parliament, there are many problems in the dissemination of parliamentary news there too.
It is near impossible to report the several thousands of words a parliamentary transcript provides, and Parliament reporters working for newspapers that declare themselves as independent of the political powers that be, are compelled to provide blanket coverage of sometimes intricate, multifaceted and complicated debates, which at any rate usually end up being printed deep within a newspaper’s page count.
The more politically influenced newspapers tackle the problem by focusing on the speeches or issues raised by their preferred party of parliamentarians. Along such lines there is also a very strong case for if not a complete eradication, or at least a ceasefire, between the parties’ media. But that is an issue to be tackled another day.
Either way, readers and viewers wind up getting the short end of the stick.
Yes, parliamentary debates are at times incredibly protracted and appear to go nowhere very slowly and at other times they are lively, spirited and impassioned.
But that is beside the point. The point is to render the process of the country’s lawmaking as transparent and accessible as possible, to as many people as possible.
That is where television, a far more popular and in many households far more easily accessed medium comes in. Moreover, televised transmissions of parliamentary debates deliver a completely new spectrum of added value to these debates.
Firstly, viewers would be able to far more easily put voices to faces and faces to names – in the process making parliamentarians more accountable for their actions in Parliament. Viewers would be able to see the facial expressions of speakers as they deliver their arguments and speeches.
Of course, there is the viewer’s gallery at Parliament but seats there are very rarely ‘sold out’, a situation that might be in for a change once the new Parliament building with its new layout and format is realised, at least at the beginning.
But, perhaps even more importantly is the effect the introduction of televised parliamentary sittings would have on the parliamentarians themselves.
Malta’s elected few would automatically feel more accountable for their actions and arguments – first because they would know that more people would inevitably be following a televised debate rather than hunkering around a radio set as was the practice in decades gone by. They would also instinctively produce better arguments and more constructive reasoning when playing to the camera as opposed to a less intrusive audio transmission device.
Overall, too little importance is given to parliamentary proceedings – on the part of both the public and the media itself. The media tends to cherry-pick what it feels will interest its readers, listeners and viewers and neglects a great deal of important issues that crop up in the House. Something should be done to address the situation.
The public as well pays too little heed to the way the country is being run, but then again complains incessantly without being informed enough. Indeed, both the public and the media need to do a better job of it, and in the process hold our parliamentarians accountable for their arguments and decisions taken in the people’s name.
An introduction of televised debates, perhaps on the Broadcasting Authority’s Education 22 channel, would be a very good means of improving the quality of the country’s democracy.