PBS says authority decision would cause commercial, financial damages

A judge in the Civil Court yesterday heard two cases over the broadcasting of information spots on the European Union by the Malta-EU Information Centre (MIC) on state television.

Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef heard evidence and verbal submissions in the case filed by Public Broadcasting Services Limited (PBS) against the Broadcasting Authority and submissions in the case filed by the Malta Labour Party against the authority.

PBS is contesting the validity of the authority's decision, on the complaint of the Malta Labour Party, regarding information spots broadcast on TVM by MIC.

PBS chairman Anthony Tabone and chief executive Andrew Psaila filed their affidavits and Tabone also took the witness stand.

He declared that the board of directors did not agree with the authority's decision issued on June 6 concerning the MLP's complaint about the MIC spots.

The June decision was at variance with a previous decision of the authority, issued on January 30, in which it had declared that it could not impose upon PBS the obligation to broadcast a series of informative programmes on a gratuitous basis.

This decision, said Tabone, was delivered by the authority in a letter sent to Jimmy Magro, the MLP's general secretary.

But the June 6 decision was the complete opposite and this was one of the principal reasons that had led PBS to contest the authority's decision in court.

Tabone said PBS had also decided to contest the BA ruling on the grounds that Net television which, like PBS, was broadcasting MIC spots against payment, was not being forced by the authority to broadcast the MLP's spots free of charge.

The Constitution, said Tabone, did not draw any distinction between a private or a public television station, but the authority was treating TVM and Net TV in a different manner.

Tabone said the board of directors at PBS gave great importance to the fact that the authority had not ruled that the broadcasting of MIC's spots had caused an imbalance on TVM.

PBS could not therefore understand how the authority could then order PBS to broadcast the MLP's spots in the limited time available for advertisements.

Nor could PBS understand how Net TV and TVM were being treated differently.

It was a fact that Net TV was being allowed to broadcast MIC spots against payment while PBS was being ordered to broadcast MLP spots free of charge on TVM in the limited time for adverts.

Tabone added that anyone involved in broadcasting was aware that the broadcasting schedule had to be established in advance, and that the schedule had to be circulated and published.

The schedule was not only important for viewers to choose their programmes, but it had a relevant function for advertising.

Advertising agencies made their bookings according to the schedule of programmes, and therefore all programmes and adverts were established and booked well in advance of their airing.

PBS claimed that advertising time was limited by broadcasting regulations, and such time could not be altered at the whim of PBS.

However, the authority had ruled, on June 6, that the spots produced by MLP had to be aired by PBS in the time already reserved by PBS for advertisements.

If this ruling were to be implemented, this would mean that PBS' schedule would be altered at the wish of the MLP, while the airing of the spots in pre-booked advertising time would cause PBS to lose revenue.

Tabone added that this would mean a violation of the agreements in force between advertising agencies and PBS and a disruption of its schedule.

PBS added that MIC was paying it for broadcasting its spots on TVM. The payment received by PBS constituted commercial information that could not be divulged to the courts, however MIC provided revenue to PBS.

Tabone said that surveys conducted on broadcasting in Malta, some of which were commissioned by the authority, had concluded that there was a substantial decrease in the number of persons who watched broadcasts of a political nature.

It also resulted that a considerable number of local viewers would switch television channels when a political broadcast was due to commence.

The authority's imposition on PBS of the broadcasting of the MLP spots would bring about a loss of viewers, with the consequential damages this would bring about.

The authority had ordered PBS to broadcast the MLP's spots in peak viewing times, such as, for example, the last item in the commercial break before the England vs Brazil World Cup game, in the half-time of this game, and as the first item in the first commercial break immediately following this game.

The authority had also wanted the MLP spots to be broadcast as the last item in the commercial break prior to the soap Ipokriti and as the last item in the first commercial break in the course of this programme.

This would mean, said PBS, that the prime time for advertising on TVM would be blocked by the MLP spots, while the adverts that would otherwise be broadcast at those times would render substantial revenue to PBS.

PBS added that it already had commitments regarding its schedule of programmes and advertising, and certain advertisers pre-booked their adverts to be broadcast while the World Cup games were on so that their adverts would be aired in an atmosphere free from politics.

The authority's decision in this regard was therefore detrimental to TVM and PBS, and would cause the company to incur commercial and financial damages.

Broadcasting Authority chief executive Kevin Aquilina also testified in yesterday's sitting.

Dr Aquilina said the authority had upheld the MLP's request to air political spots in the time allocated for advertisements on PBS.

The authority had not considered the MLP's spots to be adverts, and therefore the time PBS had for the airing of adverts was not diminished. Thus, PBS would not suffer any financial damages.

The authority felt that it had taken its decisions according to law, Dr Aquilina said.

Meanwhile, in the case filed by the MLP against the authority, in which the MLP is claiming an imbalance in broadcasting on the state-owned media, submissions were made by the counsel.

Dr Joe Brincat said the MIC had broadcast some 554 minutes of propaganda on the European Union on PBS over the last two and a half years.

Consequently, the MLP felt that there was an imbalance in broadcasting insofar as this affected the MLP's possibility of airing its position about relations between Malta and the EU.

The MLP submitted that it was entitled to a remedy not only for the imbalance it was suffering at present, but also for the imbalance it had suffered in previous years.

Prof. Ian Refalo, for the authority, declared that once the authority had granted a remedy in accordance with the law, the MLP could not then expect to be granted more by way of remedy.

The case continues.