Journalist insists on right to broadcast

Lou Bondì yesterday filed a judicial protest in the First Hall of the Civil Court claiming that the judicial protest filed against the Broadcasting Authority on May 20 by the deputy leader of the Malta Labour Party Joe Brincat constituted an abuse of the judicial process.

Bondì said Dr Brincat had absolutely no juridical interest in filing such a judicial protest, for the courts were not the appropriate venue for the expression of an individual`s particular opinion on any subject. Dr Brincat could have availed himself of the newspapers and other forms of media for this purpose and his use of the judicial process constituted an abuse and an opportunity to make gratuitous allegations and insinuations.

He added that Dr Brincat had made a number of allegations and insinuations that had never been corroborated by him or by the political party of which he was a deputy leader.

Dr Brincat had based his claims on the false premise that Bondì`s personal opinions on a number of different subjects of public interest meant that any programme produced by Bondì had perforce to have a political slant. However, Dr Brincat had failed to mention even one example of any such slant and had limited himself to making uncorroborated allegations.

Bondì said that he had, in his personal capacity and on behalf of the company Where`s Everybody?, repeatedly challenged both Dr Brincat and the MLP to justify their attacks about the alleged slant but to date the challenge had never been taken up.

He added that Dr Brincat was requesting the removal of Bondì`s right to produce any journalistic programmes on the national television station because of beliefs allegedly held by the latter. This would constitute a violation of Bondì`s right to freedom of expression.

Over the past 10 years, during which Bondì had produced television programmes for PBS under three different governments including the MLP, neither Dr Brincat nor the MLP had ever protested to the Broadcasting Authority about such programmes in the sense that they were unbalanced.

Neither had Bondì ever been found to have been unbalanced in his broadcasting. It was for this reason that an autonomous board appointed by the Broadcasting Authority had found the programme "Bondì +" to be the best investigative programme on all local television stations.

Dr Brincat himself had participated in a number of programmes produced by Bondì and he had never mentioned their alleged illegality. The best proof of Bondì`s journalistic integrity was to be found in the fact that the deputy leader of the MLP had accepted to participate in his programmes and was now declaring that the programmes were in violation of the Constitution. Dr Brincat had never complained of this fact before.

Bondì categorically denied he had ever insisted on his right to produce programmes of a political nature on the public broadcasting media. All that Bondì had insisted upon was his right as a journalist to exercise his profession, naturally within the legal parameters. It appeared though as if Dr Brincat was attempting to deny him this right without producing any evidence that Bondì had violated the law.

Bondì referred to Dr Brincat`s allegation that he was blatantly slanted in favour of the Nationalist Party. This allegation was categorically denied by Bondì who claimed that his programmes were systematically aimed at addressing themes of public interest and, therefore, examined the workings of the government in a thorough manner. This was the indispensable role of journalism and if this fundamental human right to communicate on matters of a public interest were to be removed, journalism would cease to exist.

Bondì gave a number of examples of the subject matter of his programmes Bondicini/Bondì + and claimed that these showed the falsity of Dr Brincat`s allegations.

The subjects included the case of former Police Commissioner George Grech, three programmes on the lack of security measures in the country, a programme on wardens, a programme on trafficking in illegal immigrants, a programme on rampant tax evasion by doctors and lawyers, the neglect of the national historical heritage, the boat houses at Armier, the state of the economy, the lack of education among children, the privatisation of Malta International Airport and a programme in which the principal guest speaker was the Prime Minister.

These programmes showed how totally unfounded Dr Brincat`s allegations were for all the programmes were of a discussion nature with various speakers and Bondì had at no time tried to express his own opinions on the subject matter.

Bondì said that prior to the MLP`s declaring a boycott on the programmes produced by Where`s Everybody?, the party`s members, including its leader Dr Alfred Sant, had participated in a number of the programmes. They were still invited to participate in programmes but all such invitations were refused by the MLP in view of the boycott. Dr Brincat could not complain at this stage for it was the choice of the MLP itself not to air its voice on the programmes produced by Where`s Everybody?.

The Broadcasting Authority had, in 1993, stipulated that any organisation or person was entitled to decline an invitation to participate in a programme. But refusal to participate could not automatically imply the cancellation of that programme. Cancellation would be equivalent to granting a right of veto over the particular subject and this would be inconsistent with the duty of the broadcasting services to deal with important issues.

Dr Brincat`s assertion that programmes on controversial subjects could not be aired unless under the direct control of the Broadcasting Authority was fallacious, Bondì insisted. If this interpretation were to be upheld, it would mean that the role of the Authority would not be that of supervising programmes but that of holding an absolute monopoly to produce programmes dealing with controversial matters.

He said that if Dr Brincat`s assertion were to be upheld it would mean that every programme broadcast on the public media in the past 30 years, from "Rendezvous" to "Bondì +" would be illegal. The newsroom at PBS would also be illegal as it was not directly controlled by the Authority.

Dr Brincat`s interpretation of the law was incorrect and were it to be accepted it would limit the programmes on state owned broadcasting to those limited to cooking, teleshopping, advertising and other such matters.

An individual was entitled to communicate information to the public which, in turn, was entitled to receive it and the Broadcasting Authority had confirmed that the public`s right to information was not limited to news bulletins but also to current affairs programmes examining in depth the background of events and to informed comment and open discussion.

This was exactly what Bondì was providing through his programmes. Bondì said he understood that there had to be safeguards to ensure balance and impartiality in broadcasting but this did not mean that matters of public controversy could not be discussed on television.

He added that Dr Brincat had referred to a judgement of the Court of Appeal that had disallowed a series of political broadcasts on the implementation of the CET legislation. This programmes consisted of extracts from meetings held by then Prime Minister Alfred Sant with the business community. Those, Bondì said, were political broadcasts by the government of the day alone and could not be compared with the programmes he produced.

Bondì concluded his protest by formally protesting against Dr Brincat and holding him liable in damages.

Dr Anthony Cremona signed the protest.