The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) should not function as a State broadcaster, Peppi Azzopardi and Fr Joe Borg told The Malta Independent on Sunday in separate comments.

Azzopardi and Borg were contacted to discuss the state of broadcasting in Malta, particularly in regard to political parties operating their own television stations and how this may contribute to a duopoly in politics, potentially making it more difficult for alternative parties to compete.

When asked this, Borg replied that the present situation in the country is that PBS, "based on various international reports", is not deemed as a public broadcaster, but rather as a State broadcaster - "and as a State broadcaster in the worst way".

Borg also spoke about the Broadcasting Authority (BA), which he remarked is not as efficient as it should be. He continued that until PBS is "at least perceived as giving everyone a chance to speak - giving all opinions a chance to be heard", and "until the BA is capable or at least perceived as being able to maintain a certain balance", then no party with its own media would be rational in getting rid of their media.

Borg stated that for a discussion to really begin regarding whether parties should or should not have their own media, "one must first remedy the situation concerning PBS and the BA".

Azzopardi said that he believes the national station should not be the State's station, but rather the people's. He said that the government should give funding and have nothing to do with the station beyond that, and added that there should be a Board of Directors chosen by the civil society with the potential involvement of the President, with the board ultimately making the decisions when it comes to the public broadcaster.

He stated that in the same way he believes that the Police Commissioner and the Chairperson of the Housing Authority, among others, "should not be spoken to by anyone in power", the Chairperson or CEO of PBS should function in the same way, as he remarked that one should think "as if they are magistrates". Furthermore, he questioned why someone in power, such as a minister, should speak to the PBS chairperson. "Wouldn't that just be to influence them so they do or do not broadcast something?"

In that same vein, he questioned why Home Affairs Minister Byron Camilleri should need to speak to the Police Commissioner. "To tell him to arrest someone, but not someone else?"

Azzopardi commented that if someone in power does need to speak to someone in such a position, then it should have to be public. He added that if something has to be said away from the public, then there should also be a representative from the Opposition present.

Focusing again on the function of PBS, Azzopardi referred to the BBC in the United Kingdom as an example of how a public broadcaster functions. "People call the BBC biased, but they removed Boris Johnson from Prime Minister. They made a campaign when people realised that there were parties being held at 10 Downing Street during Covid lockdowns...  Johnson had to resign."

Azzopardi remarked that if this situation had taken place in Malta, "PBS would instead see how the Prime Minister could remain... That is the difference."

"When there was fascism taking place in the prison, do you know what PBS did? They coordinated with Dalli to showcase clips making the prison seem like a hotel... Instead of helping the vulnerable, PBS sided with those in power... That's what this government has done, it has seized all the institutions," Azzopardi said.

Speaking again about the matter of political parties operating their own television stations, Azzopardi said that he thinks the party stations are "very valid", as he added that he does not believe they should be stopped. "In fact, I believe we should help them to be better, especially financially... I think that the national station should stop selling commercials so that stations like NET, One, and even others like F Living would be able to compete."

He said that party stations are important because the government "takes everything into its hands, including broadcasting". He remarked that public broadcasting is "vile and censored from beginning to end", and so he questioned what would be done if there were no party stations to offset the censorship. "Don't forget that they even censored the Pope when he spoke against corruption. If they censor the Pope, do you think they won't censor you or me?"

"Currently you need permission for everything," Azzopardi said. "You may be told not to invite someone, they control what to discuss and who to invite... Before, you used to have biased discussion, but now they don't even discuss it."

As Azzopardi was being asked about his stance on the Constitution of Malta's obligation for television stations to be impartial, he interjected that he would remove that clause from the Constitution "because impartiality does not exist".

"It's a farce, the same way that neutrality does not exist. Neutrality and balance are in the cemetery, it is a big falsehood."

He questioned what balance really means, as he then remarked that "there is nothing balanced" because everyone has their own beliefs and agenda. Azzopardi stated that he does not believe that one should be balanced, but rather that one should try their best to be fair, which he commented is a different thing. He added that stations should also declare their position, and he added that "journalists should have public positions because they are not neutral".

"When I used to do my programme, I would say what I believe in - what my position is... You would know what my position was, and I would try to be as fair as I could."

When discussing this matter, Borg focused on the question of why one may take issue with party television stations, but not with parties having newspapers, radio stations, or social media such as TikTok, Instagram, or Facebook.

Borg said that he makes this point because we are in a situation nowadays where although television is still important, social media and new media are strongly increasing in their own importance.

"So what is the principle for asking if parties should have television stations, but we don't question if they should have the others? And if they can have the others, then why can they not have television stations?"

Borg commented that a difference can be established between internal pluralism and external pluralism. He said that internal pluralism means that a particular media has different opinions within in, while external pluralism means that when one looks at the entire picture of the country, there can be all manner of opinions present. "Each different station may not have internal pluralism, but the country as a whole has external pluralism."

He said that some measures have been implemented over the years which could lead to the PBS being perceived as being fairer, such as the establishing of the editorial board, of which Borg was formerly the Chairman. However, Borg said that "despite everything that has been done, the perception is still that PBS facilitates the government". He continued that the suggestion he has made several times is for PBS to be a public service broadcaster rather than a State broadcaster. "It is important that the owner of PBS is not the government," he commented.

He said that he has suggested that the model of Sweden, among others, should be studied so that Malta could move towards a similar broadcasting model. He added that if the ownership of PBS were to be removed from the government, then there would be a chance for it to be perceived as being more independent.

On the matter of whether it is possible for alternative parties to compete considering the broadcasting situation in Malta, Borg said that Malta has had experience with different parties being in parliament. He referred to the 1962 election, where he said that five parties were elected to parliament. "We had this reality, and none of these parties had their own station. The people, in 1966, decided that they did not want more parties... So I don't think there's a necessary relation between a party not having their own television station and making inroads."

Having said that, Borg remarked that social media today gives one a lot of possibilities. He referred to Daphne Caruana Galizia's blog as an example of an online form of media with extensive reach.

Borg reiterated that PBS should not be owned by the government. He added that there needs to be a reform of the BA, as well as a reform of the financing of parties "so that there is no need for them to heavily depend on the money of businessmen".

He questioned why a group of businessmen should be able to have a television station, but a political party should not. He continued that there needs to be a BA that is operating well to ensure that there is no rampant misinformation, and a strong system of self-regulation so that the ethical level of the content is seen to.

Borg said that there needs to be discussion about a "radical and holistic reform of the media system in Malta". He added that he does not think it is enough to do things "in bits and pieces where one only addresses the question of political stations but does not treat the entire media system of the country".

When asked for his thoughts regarding the obligations set in place by the Constitution of Malta for television stations to be impartial, Borg replied that the Constitution was made during a time when there was a monopoly in broadcasting. He said that there was pluralism in newspapers, but the Constitution took the model in place for broadcasting at the time, which was a monopoly, and dictated that when it comes to matters of industry, politics, or public policy, then that one station would need to be impartial. "The scenario now has changed; we have a lot of radio and television stations as well as other media which are not regulated but may be strong and attract more people."

"This is why I am saying that there needs to be a holistic radical reform, because in my opinion, we have a situation where you have pluralism in broadcasting, and social media which is seen by many people, and so I don't think we can keep mentioning something which was made when the media system in Malta was radically different." He added that the way in which the media system in Malta has changed should be respected.

"Can you tell me why a television station has to be impartial and objective, but a newspaper does not? There's no law that dictates this, because we had pluralism in newspapers, but the law only talked about broadcasting because there was no pluralism in broadcasting.

Borg said that one could argue that television has a greater reach than newspapers, "but nowadays, we have other media which has greater reach... we will not get anywhere by taking a piece of the media system and reforming just that".