No journalism please, we`re Labour

It is now official. The leadership of the Malta Labour Party is clearly suggesting that when in goverment they will ban PBS from producing or commissioning any current affairs or discussion programmes. No journalist making such programmes will be allowed to exercise his or her profession on the national station, the only medium which stands for the whole nation.

This new Labour fatwa has not only been issued on particular individuals because they might be critical of a prospective Labour government. What has so far been a perverse blacklist covering people like Peppi Azzopardi and myself has now been extended to cover every single journalist who might be interested in doing journalism on PBS, regardless of persuasion, capability, integrity or track record.

The fatwa on current affairs and discussion programme journalism now even covers those who are on the PBS payroll. All PBS`s full-time and part-time journalists would not be allowed to run such programmes.

Am I going nuts or making this up? Not quite. On Sunday, Joe Brincat, the MLP deputy leader, wrote in his party`s paper that all PBS current affairs and discussion programmes dealing with matters of political and industrial controversy are "illegal" and he challenged anyone to prove him wrong. In his view, no such programme on PBS could ever be legal unless it is produced and presented by the Broadcasting Authority.

In other words, the only programmes that the MLP deputy leader would allow on PBS if his party were elected are the ones you see occasionally on Thursday evenings produced by the Broadcasting Authority. You know the ones. They are the televisual version of a sleeping pill.

The logical and natural extension of this argument is even scarier. Since, according to the MLP deputy leader, illegality is derived from the absence of direct BA control, the entire PBS newsroom and all its output on matters of political controversy is illegal by definition.

It might be argued that it is not that Labour is against journalism, it is that they want it to be under the full control of the Broadcasting Authority. Again, not quite. The essence of journalism is that the practitioner exercises the freedom to choose the issues to be discussed and how to deal with them. Obviously, the law prevents abuse of this freedom and that is the reason why the BA exists.

By no stretch of the imagination can the BA`s discussion programmes be called genuine exercises in journalism. They are just platforms for the political parties to deliver monologues.

The parties choose the topics, they say whatever they like and the person presenting is nothing but a glorified time-keeper. They don`t even serve as a forum for the parties to debate the issues. And, to put the cherry on the cake, the BA`s board members are appointed by the political parties. Rather cosy, isn`t it? This is a parody of journalism, not its epitome.

The bottom line is pretty clear. It is now declared Labour policy that independent and authentic television journalism on PBS will not be tolerated. As a result, under Labour there will be no television journalism on any television station.

Here is why. Net and Super One will be allowed to continue spouting pure propaganda as they do today. It is telling that Joe Brincat, who parades himself as a crusader for impartiality and balance on PBS, fails to accept the same standards for Super One. Why? Because he owns it, he tells us. So much for his journalistic principles.

At the same time, all journalism will be banned from PBS. The only thing going will be the non-journalism programmes of the Broadcasting Authority.

Joe Brincat`s declaration could be treated as an empty threat. That would not be a good idea. If you don`t take serious things seriously, serious things start to happen.