PBS refuses to reveal funding for private TV shows

The chief executive of Malta’s Public Broadcasting Services (PBS), Keith Chetcuti, has refused to reveal how much public money is being channelled to privately produced current affairs programmes, some of which are fronted by personalities seen as politically aligned with the government. The decision has reignited long-standing concerns about transparency, public accountability, and the independence of Malta’s state-funded broadcaster.

Refusal to disclose public funding details

The controversy arose after The Shift submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request seeking details of PBS contracts with independent producers and presenters, including Ricky Caruana, Saviour Balzan, and Luke Dalli. These figures are behind some of the most prominent discussion-based shows on national television, often aired during prime viewing slots.

In a written response, PBS chief Keith Chetcuti—who was appointed by the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM)—rejected the FOI request. Chetcuti said the requested documents contained “exempt matter” under Malta’s FOI legislation, arguing that disclosure would expose trade secrets and commercially sensitive data belonging to third parties.

“The requested records are likely to contain exempt matter, including trade secrets and commercially sensitive information relating to independent producers and counterparties. Any disclosure would therefore necessitate extensive third-party consultation and redaction,” Chetcuti wrote in his response.

This decision effectively blocks public scrutiny of how taxpayer funds are distributed among private production houses and individuals who supply content to PBS.

Appeal based on public interest

The Shift has since filed an appeal against the PBS decision, maintaining that the information should be made public as it involves state funds intended to support a fair and impartial public broadcaster. The publication argues that the public has a right to know how government allocations are being spent—particularly in cases where programme hosts or producers are perceived as having close ties to the ruling administration.

Transparency advocates note that the PBS, being a publicly funded institution, bears a unique obligation to disclose how it allocates its budget. In the absence of such transparency, questions naturally arise regarding whether funding decisions are influenced by political considerations rather than by journalistic merit or public service value.

Public service obligation and government control

According to internal PBS sources quoted by The Shift, all current affairs and discussion-based programmes—including those produced privately—are financed through PBS’s Public Service Obligation (PSO). This fund amounts to approximately €6 million per year, paid directly by the Maltese government to sustain the broadcaster’s operations and offset its financial losses.

One PBS insider described the current affairs shows as “a rotation of talking heads with minimal editorial substance”, suggesting that much of the publicly funded content may not align with the broadcaster’s public service remit.

Critics have also pointed to the OPM’s communications office, reportedly overseeing the selection process for private producers and presenters. The department is currently headed by Edward Montebello, formerly the head of news at ONE TV, the Labour Party’s media arm. This connection has raised concerns about editorial independence and potential conflicts of interest.

Privately produced shows under scrutiny

Among the most prominent privately produced shows is “Ricky’s Debates”, hosted by DJ-turned-presenter Ricky Caruana. The programme, which aims to discuss social and political issues, has become a flashpoint for controversy after Caruana was accused by women’s groups of making misogynistic remarks.

Caruana has rejected these claims, insisting that his comments were taken out of context. Nonetheless, the debate around his show has intensified scrutiny of PBS’s content funding decisions.

Other shows such as “Xtra”, produced by journalist Saviour Balzan, and “Bla Rispetti”, hosted by Luke Dalli, are also understood to receive public funding. Each of these programmes is estimated to cost taxpayers several thousand euros per week, depending on production scale and airtime.

Observers note that, while independent production is a common practice in public broadcasting systems worldwide, it becomes problematic when state funding is distributed without transparency or clear criteria.

Historical lack of transparency

PBS’s reluctance to publish financial details is not new. The broadcaster has long been criticised for operating with minimal public accountability, regardless of which political party is in power.

During the administrations led by the Nationalist Party, similar complaints were raised over secretive arrangements with well-known presenters, including Peppi Azzopardi and Lou Bondì. Bondì, once a communications official for the Nationalist Party, later became associated with Labour after the 2013 election victory of former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat.

Despite promises of reform and modernisation, the culture of secrecy within PBS has persisted. Until recently, the broadcaster periodically published brief summaries of public funding allocations across its programming schedule. However, this practice was quietly discontinued, leaving the public with limited insight into how millions of euros in state aid are being distributed.

Previous expenditure and data gaps

The most recent publicly available figures, dating back to 2021, show that PBS spent approximately €1.2 million on news operations and an additional €600,000 on productions associated with Saviour Balzan between 2018 and 2021. Other programmes—some of which critics argue fall outside PBS’s remit as a public service broadcaster—also received substantial sums.

The National Statistics Office (NSO) has not yet conducted a comprehensive audit of PBS’s finances or its use of the government’s PSO funds. The absence of such oversight contributes to growing concerns that public broadcasting resources are being used to support programming with limited journalistic value or political neutrality.

Questions of editorial independence

Analysts warn that a public broadcaster’s credibility depends on maintaining editorial independence from both government and commercial interests. When funding decisions are made without transparency or when political appointees oversee programming, the distinction between public service and state-controlled media becomes blurred.

Media observers argue that the refusal to disclose financial details undermines PBS’s role as an impartial broadcaster. The perception that certain presenters or producers receive preferential treatment based on political proximity can erode public trust, not only in PBS but in the broader Maltese media ecosystem.

Legal justifications and accountability gap

Under Malta’s Freedom of Information Act, public entities may withhold documents if they contain trade secrets, commercially sensitive data, or information that could harm third-party interests. However, transparency advocates argue that these exemptions should not be used to conceal how public money is spent, especially when contracts are financed through taxpayer funds.

Critics contend that PBS’s reliance on the commercial sensitivity exemption may be legally permissible but ethically questionable. It highlights a broader accountability gap in the governance of publicly funded institutions. Without independent audits or parliamentary oversight, it is difficult to ensure that funding is allocated fairly and in accordance with the broadcaster’s public service mission.

Calls for reform and transparency

Civil society organisations and media watchdogs have urged PBS to restore transparency by publishing annual financial breakdowns, including details of independent production contracts funded through the PSO scheme. Advocates have also called for reforms that would make the broadcaster’s governance more autonomous and less susceptible to political influence.

Proposals have included establishing an independent media oversight board and requiring annual public disclosure of state-funded contracts. Such measures, supporters argue, would bring Malta’s public broadcasting system in line with European best practices.

Until meaningful reforms are implemented, the debate surrounding PBS’s financial opacity is likely to persist, continuing to cast a shadow over the broadcaster’s reputation and its commitment to serving the public interest.

Outlook and implications for public trust

The PBS funding dispute illustrates the persistent tension between government influence and media independence in Malta. As long as key financial data remains hidden, suspicions of political favouritism and misuse of public resources will likely endure.

Whether through renewed legal appeals, parliamentary scrutiny, or public pressure, greater transparency at PBS is essential to rebuild trust and uphold the principles of fair, accountable journalism. The coming months will determine whether the broadcaster moves toward openness—or continues to shield its financial dealings from public view.

Conclusion

The ongoing dispute between PBS and transparency advocates encapsulates a broader struggle over accountability and integrity in Malta’s publicly funded institutions. As the country’s national broadcaster, PBS carries a fundamental responsibility to operate transparently, maintain editorial independence, and ensure that taxpayer funds are used in the public interest—not to promote politically connected figures or partisan narratives.

By refusing to disclose key financial information, PBS risks eroding public confidence in both its governance and its journalistic mission. Legal justifications based on commercial sensitivity may protect certain contractual details, but they do not negate the public’s right to understand how millions of euros in state funding are allocated each year. In democratic societies, transparency is not an optional gesture—it is a foundational principle of public trust.

The controversy also underscores the need for systemic reform within Malta’s broadcasting framework. Greater oversight, clear funding criteria, and mandatory public reporting could help restore credibility and ensure that PBS remains a genuine public service broadcaster, not an instrument of political convenience.

Ultimately, rebuilding trust in PBS will require more than compliance with technical legalities; it demands a commitment to openness, fairness, and accountability. Only through genuine transparency can Malta’s public broadcaster reclaim its role as a platform that serves the nation’s citizens—independently, impartially, and responsibly.

FAQs

What is PBS and how is it funded?
PBS is Malta’s public broadcaster, funded primarily through an annual government subsidy known as the Public Service Obligation (PSO), which totals around €6 million.

Why did PBS refuse the FOI request?
PBS claimed that the requested documents contained “trade secrets” and commercially sensitive material that could harm third-party interests.

Who submitted the FOI request?
The investigative news platform The Shift submitted the request seeking details of PBS contracts with private producers.

What is “Ricky’s Debates”?
It is a current affairs show hosted by Ricky Caruana, a DJ-turned-presenter. The show has faced criticism for controversial remarks made by its host.

Who oversees PBS operations?
PBS operates under the oversight of the Office of the Prime Minister, which appoints its chief executive and supervises its financial framework.

Why are critics concerned about PBS funding?
Observers fear that public money is being directed toward politically aligned programmes instead of neutral, public interest journalism.

Has PBS faced similar criticism in the past?
Yes. Both Labour and Nationalist administrations have been accused of using PBS to favour politically friendly media figures.

What reforms are being proposed?
Transparency advocates have called for annual publication of funding data and the creation of an independent oversight board for PBS.

How much has PBS spent on private productions?
Between 2018 and 2021, PBS spent around €600,000 on productions associated with journalist Saviour Balzan, in addition to other programmes.

Why does this matter to the public?
Since PBS is taxpayer-funded, citizens have a right to know how their money is spent and whether it supports impartial, public-interest programming.