Opinion: Television Is Not Dying. It Is Changing

One is leading this change For years we have heard the same refrain: television is dying. However, the truth is more nuanced than that. Television is not dying. What is changing is how people consume it, what they seek from it and why they turn to it in the first place. The traditional idea of television is one with a fixed schedule. From morning shows, through a myriad range of light programming or repeats throughout the day leading up to the evening news followed by entertainment prior to bedtime. This model, with audiences dutifully waiting for the next programme is undoubtedly under pressure of an insistent nature. Younger audiences, daily being swollen by a widening definition of young, live in a world of streaming platforms, social media and access to the content they want whenever and wherever they want it. Reality television, talent shows and light entertainment are no longer scarce commodities. They are everywhere. Audiences can access them on demand, often free of charge and with virtually unlimited choice. But, while the delivery system has changed, one human need remains remarkably resilient: people still want to experience important moments together, in real time and on a screen that feels immediate and trusted. This is where live television retains enormous value. Sport still commands massive audiences. Major cultural and political moments still draw viewers to live coverage. And nowhere is this more evident than in news. At ONE we recognised this shift early and geared up for it. We recognised that the old broadcasting philosophy of bringing the world into your home was not enough anymore. Our philosophy therefore evolved: we aim to take viewers wherever the action is. That distinction matters. Audiences today do not need broadcasters to compete with endless entertainment libraries. What they still need is immediacy, presence and context. They want journalists, cameras and live reporting where events are unfolding, while they are unfolding, and not after the fact. They want to be there while history is happening, and we take them there. This philosophy shaped ONE’s approach during the recent general election coverage. Rather than relying solely on studio discussion, we invested heavily in live presence, multiple and mobile camera locations, and continuous updates from across the country. The result was not simply a television programme but a real-time national experience. The audience figures tell their own story. Our investment and culture shift paid off with fantastic results. Election day and evening produced exceptionally strong engagement for ONE. Throughout key moments of the vote and then subsequent expectation of the count, viewers increasingly gravitated towards our live coverage. Real-time and actual figures taken from set-top boxes, and not through random and subjective sampling, show peaks exceeding 58,000 viewers during the afternoon climbed sharply during decisive evening hours, with figures rising above 100,000 at critical moments. These are not merely numbers for commercial celebration. They reveal something more important. They demonstrate that, despite all predictions about the decline of television, audiences still turn decisively towards live broadcasting when information matters most. This should also encourage a broader national discussion about public broadcasting and how Malta supports it. Let me be clear: Malta should have a national broadcaster. Public broadcasting serves an important purpose and remains a vital part of democratic life. The principle behind the Public Service Obligation support remains sound and valuable. The established mission of the public broadcasting concept has long been clear: to support programming that may not necessarily be commercially viable but which contributes to the cultural, educational and social development of society. Parliamentary coverage, cultural productions, educational content, children’s programming, religious broadcasts and matters of national interest all fall squarely within that remit. No serious observer questions the importance of these responsibilities. But equally legitimate is the question of whether the conversation around public support for broadcasting needs updating. The media environment of 2026 is radically different from that of 2004. If entertainment programming today can generate advertising, sponsorship and significant commercial returns, should public funding structures continue to operate exactly as they did two decades ago? And if public funds exist to preserve content that markets alone may not sustain, should discussions not also consider how support can be distributed in ways that reflect contemporary realities and create a genuinely level playing field? These are questions about policy, fairness and relevance. The debate should not be whether public broadcasting survives. There is no question about that. If public service obligation support is built on the premise, the correct one, that there is content that our society should have access to even if it is not a revenue-generator, shouldn’t that content be publicly supported also where there is more potential for a wider audience reach? The debate is therefore whether public support is being deployed in the spirit it was originally intended, and whether media policy has evolved sufficiently to recognise how audiences now consume information. Broadcasting, like all else, needs to evolve with the times, and history has taught us that evolution is as relentless as it is merciless. The future of broadcasting will not belong to those who simply defend old models, and refuse to adapt. It will belong to those who understand what audiences still value. Television has changed. Viewers have changed. Public policy may now need to evolve as well. Silvio Scerri is the Chairman of ONE TV 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] •