The King Report into the future of GBC and the need for radical meritocracy-driven reforms is a breath of fresh air. It is a critical and constructive review that lays bare the inner entrails and shortcomings of the corporation like never before. Perhaps the first reaction upon reading the document which states that “less than 30% (of the community) believe it provides good value,” and that “GBC is a devalued brand,” is one of surprise that there has not been a cascade of resignations from management posts after such a devastating vote of no confidence on those who have presided over the latter day chapter in the decline of a once key local institution.

As an opening comment the utter failure of the rotating management system in place at GBC since the retirement of former General Manager George Valarino has been indisputable, and responsibility for this harmful power vacuum which has seen a plummeting of technical and creative standards, must also be shouldered by whoever proposed such misconceived system in the first place. Naturally the situation in which GBC finds itself, is not an overnight occurrence, it has come about through years of decay: the report notes how “the prevailing culture has eroded respect for management to the extent that it is virtually nonexistent,” denounces the existence of “a job for life mentality” and benignly concludes that it has produced “some ‘deadwood’ amongst the staff,” for which, in any event, those previously entrusted with the destinies of the corporation must take the lion’s share of blame.

Readers also ought to reflect that since the GSD came into power in 1996, at a conservative estimate well over £22m in subsidies has gone into the corporation.

PARITY

The report also sounds the death-knell for parity with BBC Regional Stations, another of the deeply ingrained systems of privilege that have been ring fenced at the corporation by virtue of long standing practice and custom. This stemmed from a political principle of another era and became a completely unjustified concession which seems unsustainable in a modern day open market economy. One thing is fair, appropriate remuneration for employees within local parameters, but quite another is the wholesale transposition of UK pay scales where, as the report points out, “responsibility and roles are not similar.” The question to be asked is does the Government now envisage the lowering of salaries?

As highlighted by the report, the need for strong leadership will be a key factor in the consolidation of a new work ethos of modern working practices, staff flexibility, output & performance assessment and multi-tasking, the importance of which cannot be sufficiently emphasized. Management will be given the powers to manage, including powers of staff appraisal, discipline & dismissal, and through a redundancy scheme, to dispose of “employees whose profile skills are an obstacle to the successful future of GBC.”

The King Report should set off a domino effect across the Rock. In broader terms, value for money is essential if Gibraltar is to retain its economic competitiveness and the public sector should not be exempted from this general consideration. It is no use having a two tier society where the private sector, the wealth generating nucleus of the economy is crucified with taxes to keep uneconomic public structures afloat. People cannot be expected to be paid just for turning up for work, which has been a disease in parts of the local administration. In the light of this document, the malaise of summer hours, unlimited overtime, lack of productivity, absenteeism and inflated unjustified wages in some of its areas should now come under greater scrutiny.

ORIGINS

Before going into any further detail of the report it is worth examining the corporation’s origins in order to fully understand and appreciate its significance, and the reasons why it finds itself at such a juncture.

At the height of Madrid’s restrictions and the frontier closure, when the Rock was on the receiving end of hostile, systematic anti-Gibraltar propaganda hurled at us from General Franco’s state media, it made sense to have a vehicle to counteract that propaganda, and the only way it could be neutralised was with counter-propaganda, a different type of propaganda, but propaganda nonetheless.

GBC served its purpose when it was founded and contributed in strengthening people’s resolve to resist General Franco’s unwanted advances, but also by accident or design, it exploited anti-Spanish emotions and stereotypes which became deeply ingrained in its modus operandi at a time when the conditions for this were rife, some of it, still to this day, admittedly in less proportion that in the past, occasionally rears its ugly head. However it is incredible to note that the legal and legislative basis upon which GBC was created has remained in place to our day.

During the closed frontier era, it had a worthy social function that deserves to be recognised. However when the frontier opened, and times changed, GBC adaptation to the new situation was slow and onerous. Although with the passage of time, it developed at least in part to meet the challenges of a changed social context and the new Gibraltar that would emerge from it, some of its essences remained largely unchanged. There were also monumental wasted opportunities: it failed to anticipate the satellite revolution, to adopt a far more commercial outlook and remained a sclerotic organisation conceived for a siege but sluggish to react and insensitive to changing viewing trends and tastes.

It should also be noted that it was around this time that the infamous decoders were introduced by the previous management, which instead of opening up new commercial markets and expanding revenues in the Costa del Sol, effectively shut GBC down from the English speaking community and derailed any attempts at maximising its advertising and marketing potential. A costly failure that dented the corporation’s reputation.

CAMPO NEWS

A key recommendation tucked away in the report states that Campo news and events should be included in the normal programming. This is a hugely significant breakthrough, in that it crosses a psychological threshold in Gibraltar’s collective drive toward normalisation with Spain, and in an organisation that for many years eschewed not just all contact but even acknowledging that there was such a country at our doorstep. As a lifelong spectator of GBC this is something that always stood out as a complete abnormality, that there should be elements within not just reluctant to engage the Spanish side of our hybrid identity, but openly hostile to that possibility. Clearly as a publicly funded corporation it must if not enthusiastically promote the idea of normalisation, at least not be seen to be undermining it at every available opportunity. The King Report recommendation that Campo news be given adequate coverage should be seen as the signal for a clean break with the past in this crucial area of the corporation.

MARKET DISTORTION

Looking ahead, perhaps the most worrying aspect of the report given its repercussions in terms of market distortion, is the references to GBC’s advertising strategy, when in fact, as a public broadcaster that receives regular subsidies from the Government, it can be justifiably questioned whether this will not constitute a case of flagrant unfair competition in respect of others in the private sector whose livelihood is totally dependent on advertising revenues. Additionally the EU position on public broadcasting is clear and its commitment to stamp out practices that create market distortions is well known. State television broadcasters, Spain’s RTVE is the latest example, are banning all commercial advertising from their screens precisely for these reasons. GBC should not be competing for adverts with private sector elements which do not have the benefit of regular subsidies, at the throwaway prices it can offer but opening up new streams of revenue, new services that are not currently available in Gibraltar and perhaps even further afield.

RADIO

Most of the King Report makes a great deal of sense. It rightly identifies that “radio suffers from trying to be all things to all people, targeting too wide an age range.” The recommendation to have two radio stations a youth FM type music channel, and another geared for the adult listener is therefore absolutely spot-on. At the moment morning radio is a hotchpotch of college radio and more serious output which is neither one thing or the other, where one person doing a supposedly formal press review has the irritating tendency to sprinkle it all with banal student humour, but is quite capable of throwing in, albeit perhaps unwittingly, a quite serious editorial comment of his own, (something along the lines of “the mayor’s charm offensive” to get in on the tripartite), which should be identified as such and not thrown into the mix in the middle of the light-hearted banter. Everything has its place but attention to presentation and format is extremely important.

QUALITY CONTROL

The quality of the journalism also needs a substantial lift. There is too much trivial content, too much improvisation, sensationalism and un-researched interviews which perhaps goes unnoticed simply because of the low audience ratings, but it is not difficult to imagine people choking on their dinner when an interviewer asked a Gibraltar Regiment soldier who had just come back from Afghanistan whether Helmand province is a dangerous place. That is just one example of shoddy standards.

Quality control in programmes is conspicuous by its absence, an extreme example being the unacceptable spelling mistakes in credits not to mention the technical breakdowns, poor reception in various areas, awful sound and picture quality in live transmissions/recordings etc.

The weekly News Review programme is a well intentioned programme but it is most infuriating to see how in Jonathan Sacramento’s absence, the show has become simply a chat between friends as you might have in any cafeteria in Gibraltar. The programme is supposed to be a serious political analysis of the week’s events, but much of it is simply bland, non-committal, often uninformed comment prefixed by phrases such as “I stand to be corrected on this,” “I am not sure of the details of that,” and similar. Sacramento is a valid journalistic element in GBC’s future and he should really instil proper discipline into his team or put professional media analysts in the panel or persons who are knowledgeable of the topics discussed.

STAFF RECRUITMENT

This is an excellent opportunity to establish solid foundations for recruiting staff on the basis of rigorous and selective criteria with an emphasis on highly-trained personnel, quality, calibre and experience rather than in quantity and numbers both in technical and journalistic fields. The employment policy has at times not been as stringent as it should be. An additional compulsory requirement that must be introduced is bilingualism, English and Spanish, to acceptable oral and written standard because if GBC is going to reflect changing times, it must also incorporate as it seeks to do, greater interaction with the hinterland.

It would be absurd to continue signing up newscasters, reporters and radio presenters who have little or no command of Spanish. It is time that we collectively overcame our hang-ups in this field, and revert the trend of a language that is sadly, fast disappearing from the day to day reality of the vast majority of our children. Programmes in Spanish should be introduced on television just as the radio has kept this service going for decades.

For many years we have seen GBC insisting that interviews be carried out in English even when interviewing a Spaniard, or a Gibraltarian clearly deficient in the English language. However, when it comes to religious programmes, all traces of prejudice seem to evaporate as Spanish priests, missionaries and preachers have regularly been interviewed at leisure in its religious programmes, without any language restrictions or even subtitles.

Perhaps GBC ought to outsource translations in order to elevate the atrocious standards of the Spanish radio news and correct the pronunciation which is a source of constant embarrassment to anyone who believes that we should be striving for excellence in both English and Spanish and that our institutions should be at the forefront of this endeavour. While individuals in a private capacity should be free to make their choices and reject bilingualism if they so wish, striving for excellence in the two languages should be the cornerstone of our educational system, and the publicly funded broadcasting station should reflect this aspiration, and not be content to churn out a substandard product.

On the plus side the report notes that there is “overwhelming support for GBC’s continued existence” and that “there is an exceptional level of talent at GBC,” perhaps unmotivated and unable to make a difference in the current scenario. It also promises that in the new GBC, “staff will enjoy terms and facilities which will recognise their professional worth.”

It is to be hoped that the “complete overhaul of working practices, management and staff structure” plus the equipment upgrade that is envisaged, will yield positive results and that the King Report represents both a renaissance of quality broadcasting in Gibraltar and also signals the end of a monopoly which is one of the enduring legacies of the colonial era.

(note: italics are quotes from the King Report)