Minister Cristina certain PBS can self-regulate to highest standards

Education Minister Dolores Cristina has no problem with a law which on the one hand stipulates that Public Broadcasting Services journalists should remain impartial but, on the other hand, leaves the matter optional.

PBS should be editorially independent

“It is very clear that the intention of the legislator was in favour of measures of self-regulation,” Mrs Cristina said, in response to a series of questions by The Times about the wording of subsidiary legislation 350.14.

The subsidiary legislation, introduced in 2008, says producers of news and current affairs programmes should have no outside interests or commitments that could damage PBS’ reputation for “impartiality, fairness and integrity”.

It also says reporters or presenters of current affairs programmes must be “seen to be impartial”.

“It is important that no off-air activity, including writing, the giving of interviews, or the making of speeches, leads to any doubt about their objectivity on-air. If such presenters or reporters publicly express personal views off-air on controversial issues, then their on-air role may be severely compromised.”

The law precludes journalists from saying how they vote or expressing support for any political party; expressing views for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate; advocating any particular position on an issue of current public controversy or debate; or exhorting a change in high profile public policy.

It goes on to say it is not enforceable by the Broadcasting Authority but “may be” applied by PBS.

The Labour Party last week accused two veteran presenters of current affairs discussion programmes, Peppi Azzopardi and Lou Bondì, of flagrantly breaching practically all these regulations.

Mr Bondì recently said during a TV interview he would vote for the PN, as he had always done, at the next election. He also set up a blog in which he regularly criticises Labour and its officials.

Mr Azzopardi recently admitted to having coached Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando at the PN headquarters in the last week of the election campaign, just before a crucial public confrontation with Opposition leader Alfred Sant.

When Labour raised these issues, PBS pointed out that the law “clearly states it is not enforceable by the BA” but that it enforces the law when there is some kind of election in the country. Mr Azzopardi and Mr Bondì defended their freedom of expression, pointing out that Labour did not complain when they expressed themselves in favour of divorce, a position which tallied with the party’s unofficial stand. Mr Azzopardi went on to say that journalists were never neutral and should actually be obliged to declare their bias so as not to take audiences for a ride.

Asked why the legislation was written in the first place, seeing as it was not enforceable except at the discretion of PBS, Mrs Cristina said it was clear the legislator was in favour of self-regulation.

“I am certain the relevant boards of PBS together with the CEO and the registered editor are more than capable to self-regulate their news and current affairs programmes, in line with legislation and the highest professional standards,” Mrs Cristina’s spokesman said.

“The government believes PBS should regulate itself in this matter since it is the declared policy of the government that PBS should be editorially independent.”

The Times also asked Mrs Cristina if she agreed with the arguments raised by Mr Azzopardi and Mr Bondì and, if so, whether the law should be removed altogether. No reply was forthcoming.

The Broadcasting Authority last week said it was following up the matter with PBS but has since given no update.

Meanwhile, questions sent to PBS remain unanswered.

The Times asked why PBS enforces impartiality regulations during election campaigns and not throughout the year and whether it would enforce the law retroactively since Mr Azzopardi’s coaching session was held a few days before the 2008 election.

The Times also asked PBS to explain why it felt the positions of Mr Azzopardi and Mr Bondì were tenable and whether other journalists would be given the same leeway.

PBS was also asked for its view on the ambiguous law, which has been questioned by Prof. Kenneth Wain and media lecturer Fr Joe Borg due to its vague wording.

Meanwhile, replying to questions by The Times about the law, Labour said nobody protested when the law was passed but those who now defaulted wanted a change in the rules.

“The issue here is not simply about expressing political opinions but active involvement in political campaigning, which has been proven to have taken place,” a Labour spokesman said.

“It is now clear that Mr Bondì and Mr Azzopardi produced, presented and continue to present programmes on taxpayer-funded public television, when they have a clear bias and involvement in the GonziPN campaign, which was not disclosed to the public.”

Asked why it was OK for them to state their opinions on divorce, the Labour spokesman said: “Labour’s position was one of freedom of conscience during the said divorce referendum campaign.”