The Broadcasting Authority was established in 1961 and amendments to the Broadcasting Act liberalising the broadcasting sector were passed through parliament in 1991 – so this year marks two very important anniversaries for broadcasting in Malta. Celebrations are, of course, timely but anniversaries also present us with an opportunity to reflect on the challenges ahead. One particular question – as to whether or not the political ownership of the broadcasting media is desirable – has re-emerged.

On political ownership of the broadcasting media

There is little doubt in my mind that pluralism in broadcasting has helped the growth of democracy and the democratic ideal in no small way. The country has moved from the ‘one nation, one station’ system to a proliferation of local radio and television stations complemented by an even wider selection of foreign stations via cable, satellite and the internet. We have moved from a system where the state-owned broadcaster was the only broadcaster and was systematically used to control the information flow, to a system where statements and opinions are continuously questioned and challenged on a multitude of media, with control practically impossible.

While Radio 101 and Super One have celebrated their 20th anniversary this year, some have argued time and time again that even in such a liberalised system there is no place for political ownership of the broadcasting media. Indeed, apart from the radio stations, Malta’s two main political parties each also own also a television station, an internet news portal, websites, and a Sunday newspaper. In addition, the Nationalist Party also has a daily newspaper – which the Labour Party does not – but then Labour is very well-served with the left wing General Workers Union daily.

It is no secret that political party-owned media are draining party finances, and the more they struggle for audiences, the more pressure they are exerting on those finances. This is one of the main reasons why, back in the 1990s, the Nationalist Party leadership initially resisted pressure to establish its own television station.

The influence that political party media exert today has to be taken in context. The latest Radio and Television Audience Assessment conducted by the Broadcasting Authority reveals that the audience share of the political parties is not particularly high. About 19 per cent of respondents listed to political party radio stations, while the figure for television is just above 27 per cent. The stations balance out each other’s opinions with their broadcasts, with a listener or viewer being able to easily switch from one station to another, while the world view and version of the truth also has to compete with an array of foreign stations.

The Broadcasting Authority’s survey also revealed that foreign TV stations hold more than 40 per cent of the audience share. With over 90 per cent of households connected to the internet, we are definitely part of the global village and the information society where, some would argue, the problem is not one of too much control but rather of too little, with unverified information flowing from a huge number of sources with the man in the street not properly protected.

This does not mean that the political party media should not keep to expected ethical standards, neither is it a declaration against fair access to different opinions. It is just an observation that, no matter how partisan or unbalanced the aired content may be, no station – or, indeed no political party – is in a position to monopolise the realm of information. In remaining out of synch with the demands of listeners and viewers, political party stations risk losing credibility and eventual self-annihilation. George Orwell’s Big Brother is not possible in a system like ours that embraces pluralism.

On media independence and objectivity

On the other hand, media independence does not necessarily guarantee objectivity. The declared ownership and ideology of the political party media immediately reveals its bias to the media consumer, who can interpret the messages accordingly. Independent media houses are similarly subject to predispositions, but not all of them express this bias clearly with the announcement of editorial lines. Indeed, there are particular instances where there is no intention of unveiling hidden agendas, which can be of more danger to society than having a political party station preaching its credo. Sometimes there is little indication of the identity of the ownership, or of those actually in control and, just like the political party, other forms of ownership can have other undeclared interests in addition to the policies expressed through the editorial line. Like a political party medium, a privately-owned one is similarly concerned with its own survival. As was evident from the News of the World scandal, audiences, like votes, are all important and sometimes the commercially-owned media go to extremes to safeguard them. Advertising budgets, business partnerships and interests and maybe unknown personal sympathies and antipathies can also factor in the equation.

My arguments are not intended to launch accusations at the local media, as fortunately we have not stooped as low as the News of the World, but rather to show that chanting political credos in a liberalised system is not the main danger that broadcasting and indeed democracy is facing. So before deciding to eliminate political party media and possibly leaving broadcasting solely in the hands of business interests and media tycoons, perhaps we should consider having a more robust and effective regulator and a media-literate society.

Clyde Puli is Parliamentary Secretary for Youth and Sport