The Broadcasting Authority is a constitutional body that should really and truly be the sort of watchdog society is happy with as it strives to guarantee impartiality, accuracy and best practice in broadcasting. Alas, over the past months the Authority took certain decisions which were, at best, incongruous if not outright illogical. This attitude has now culminated in the absurd instructions issued to Public Broadcasting Services Ltd in order for the Authority to view recordings of the weekly chat show Xarabank prior to transmission. By taking such draconian action, the Broadcasting Authority has stopped being a watchdog to become a censor, even a dinosaur.

The Authority is bound by the Constitution "to ensure that, so far as possible, in such sound and television broadcasting services as may be provided in Malta, due impartiality is preserved in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy..."

In exercising such a function, the Authority is, by the powers vested in it by the Constitution, not subject "to the direction or control of any other person or authority".

In view of pluralism in broadcasting, the Broadcasting Act laid down that "the Authority shall be able to consider the general output of programmes provided by the various broadcasting licensees and contractors, together as a whole".

This rightly gave rise to pertinent questions as to whether the Constitution or the Broadcasting Act prevailed. The former spoke of "sound and television broadcasting services" provided in Malta. It did not make any exceptions as the Broadcasting Act does.

This state of affairs in turn puts the political stations at an advantage over the public broadcasting services. The contents of their daily news bulletins is a case in point.

It ought to be pointed out at this stage that the Authority is made up of a chairman, nominated by the government, and four members, nominated equally by the prime minister and the leader of the opposition.

The balance in favour of the political parties is too blatant to be missed even if some may argue the members represent nobody else but themselves.

Now we have reached a stage where the Authority seems to be flexing its muscles with PBS but is virtually impotent vis-a-vis the political stations, bar a handful of fines, even if hefty by our standards, when they air more commercials than they should.

The latest move by the Broadcasting Authority is simply atrocious, a direct affront to a democratic country which has correctly introduced pluralism in broadcasting with so much fanfare.

The Authority now wants to view PBS's schedule of programmes and advertising in order to give its seal of approval. It has hijacked PBS's airwaves and taken over scheduling. It insists on censoring, there is no other term for it, Xarabank programmes.

Surely the Authority will come up with its own reasons for doing so. And it will surely cite legal provisions. Unfortunately, some legal experts cannot help but give a narrow interpretation to the word of the law and overlook the spirit.

This is not a broadcasting watchdog. This is not a body serving the public but a body serving the political parties.

May common sense prevail before such woeful democratic credentials are forced into the hands of higher authorities on the European mainland.