Guest Post: How PBS Controls The Narrative, And How We Can Fix It!

Political Framing on TVM

TVM often employs political framing to shape how news is understood by the public. But what is political framing exactly? It’s a method of reporting that, while not necessarily inaccurate, fails to tell the whole story. By selectively presenting facts, it influences the audience’s perception, often casting the government in a favourable light, even in the midst of controversy.

This practice involves three main tactics aimed at protecting the government and softening public backlash during scandals. Let’s explore one glaring example of this: TVM’s coverage of the Jean Paul Sofia case in 2023.

The first tactic involves omitting key details. In TVM’s newsroom, crucial information is often left out when a government scandal breaks. A clear instance of this occurred during the public inquiry into Jean Paul Sofia’s tragic death. TVM did not highlight the Prime Minister’s significant U-turn on the inquiry. In fact, there wasn’t even a dedicated article covering this shift. Instead, on the day of a vigil for Jean Paul Sofia, TVM ran a piece noting that Isabelle Bonnici, Sofia’s mother, “thanked the Prime Minister for informing her that a public inquiry would take place.”

While it’s true that a public inquiry was eventually called, the article lacked context. What it didn’t mention was the immense pressure placed on the Prime Minister and the Labour Parliamentary Group, who had initially opposed the inquiry. By omitting the government’s prior refusal, TVM’s reporting created the impression that the Prime Minister had proactively pushed for the inquiry. The focus on Bonnici’s gratitude made the government appear commendable while glossing over the significant public and parliamentary opposition that led to the inquiry.

The second commonly employed tactic is selective reporting.

Take, for example, the headline: “Parliament votes against public inquiry into Jean Paul Sofia’s death.” While the headline is factually correct, TVM’s reporting put a particular “spin” on the story. The coverage highlighted the government’s emphasis on “acting quickly” and prioritising the completion of the magisterial inquiry, presenting a seemingly positive narrative.

However, it was not the entire Parliament that voted against the public inquiry. The Labour Party MPs opposed the appointment of a board of inquiry, while the Opposition advocated for it. Referring to “Parliament” implies a collective decision, masking the reality that Labour MPs were solely responsible for blocking the inquiry. This framing subtly alters public perception, suggesting a consensus that did not exist.

Moreover, the article failed to mention the emotional reaction of Jean Paul Sofia’s family. Many will recall the events in the parliamentary auditorium, where Sofia’s relatives expressed their outrage at the government’s stance. Why was this crucial detail omitted from TVM’s report? The omission speaks volumes and leaves room for speculation.

Lastly, TVM employs controlled language to great effect. The wording is carefully chosen to influence public opinion, especially when reporting on government actions. Phrases like “the Prime Minister took action,” “made an important statement,” or “gave importance to this case” cast the government as responsible and attentive. In the face of scandals or criticism, the language used often stresses “the importance given” or the steps taken to address issues, downplaying any initial reluctance or delay.

In stark contrast, reports on the Opposition often carry a more sceptical tone. Words like “alleges,” “criticises,” or “says” are deliberately chosen, subtly undermining the credibility of Opposition statements. This linguistic bias suggests that the Opposition’s claims are less trustworthy or significant, further skewing public perception.

Language Makes All The Difference

The way news is presented can profoundly shape public perception, and TVM’s reporting is no exception. To illustrate how language can be subtly manipulated to influence opinions, let’s examine how headlines about Prime Minister Robert Abela and the Opposition are framed, particularly in sensitive cases like the Jean Paul Sofia tragedy.

Consider these examples of TVM’s headlines about the Prime Minister:

• “The Prime Minister: ‘Give maximum importance to the investigations into the death of Jean Paul Sofia’”
• “The Prime Minister criticises delays in the inquiry into the death of Jean Paul Sofia”
• “The Prime Minister writes to the Chief Justice: ‘The delay in the inquiry is totally unacceptable’”

These headlines are designed to portray the Prime Minister as authoritative and action-oriented. The emphasis on phrases like “maximum importance” and “criticises the delay” positions the government as proactive and serious, shifting blame for any shortcomings onto other authorities.

Now let’s contrast this with how TVM reports on the Opposition and Bernard Grech:

• “The Leader of the PN submits a motion for a public inquiry into the death of Jean Paul Sofia”
• “The Leader of the PN says that only a public inquiry will reveal the truth about the death of Jean Paul Sofia”
• “The PN will submit a motion in parliament calling for a public inquiry into the tragic death of Jean Paul Sofia”

In contrast, the language used for the Opposition is more neutral and less impactful. Phrases like “submits a motion” and “says” lack the emotional weight of “criticises” or “takes decisive action.” Statements from the Opposition are framed in ways that can cast doubt or diminish their importance, with phrases like “says that only a public inquiry will reveal the truth” suggesting uncertainty or questionable effectiveness.

This selective use of language makes the Prime Minister appear strong and decisive, while the Opposition comes across as merely making requests with uncertain outcomes. Such biased reporting raises serious concerns about the transparency and impartiality of public media. TVM’s approach undermines the democratic process by depriving the public of balanced and complete information, subtly swaying perceptions in a way that should not occur in a fair and open society.

A Vision for a Reformed PBS

TVM has increasingly become a government mouthpiece, despite being funded by our taxes and meant to serve the public. What should be a public service broadcaster dedicated to informing the Maltese people has instead been used to shield the government’s image. Public broadcasting has drifted away from serving the people and now prioritises the interests of politicians.

The situation is worsened by the lack of genuine alternatives. ONE and NET are no better, and smaller stations don’t have the reach to fill the gap. While online media provides more variety, it caters to a different audience than television. So, what can be done? On our own, not much—but together, through public pressure, we could shift the balance at TVM.

The first step is establishing genuine editorial independence. TVM needs an autonomous editorial board made up of respected figures from journalism, academia, and civil society. This board should be free from government interference and appointed through a transparent parliamentary process to safeguard impartiality in reporting.

Secondly, PBS must bring back high-quality discussion programmes. Investigative journalism, debates, and even satire (yes, satire) should be at the core of TVM’s content. The Maltese public deserves honest, critical discussions on the issues that matter, featuring a diverse range of voices, whether politicians, experts, or activists. This would be a major step in fostering meaningful public dialogue.

Finally, PBS should focus on journalism that truly serves the public interest. Instead of giving priority to government press releases or opposition soundbites, coverage should emphasise how political decisions affect everyday Maltese citizens. Issues like the housing crisis, immigration, environmental concerns, and government scandals need to be explored thoroughly and transparently. Only then can public broadcasting genuinely fulfil its role.

Without these crucial reforms, TVM will remain a tool for the powerful rather than a platform for the people. If we value our democracy, we must push for independent, critical journalism that holds authority to account and promotes open debate. Restoring PBS to its rightful purpose is not just an aspiration but a necessity for the health of our democratic society. Let’s work towards a PBS that informs, educates, and challenges power in the interest of all Maltese citizens.

Recent appointments to PBS leadership have brought new faces to the helm, and while we may hope that these changes mark the beginning of a new, more independent chapter, it’s too soon to assume this will be the case. True reform requires more than personnel changes; it demands a shift in values, transparency, and a firm commitment to serving the public over political interests.

Lovin Malta is open to interesting, compelling guest posts from third parties. These opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Submit your piece at [email protected]