It is not at all surprising that the Broadcasting Authority has found that PBS erred when it failed to immediately report what Finance Minister Edward Scicluna said when he replied to criticism of the cash-for-passport scheme in Brussels earlier this month.
Though the broadcasting watchdog ultimately found no imbalance, it is unacceptable that a national broadcaster had not found important declarations made by the minister of any news value when the issue provoked so much controversy and interest not just in Malta but in the international media.
The strong indications of possible changes to the scheme given at a time when the government was hoping to reach consensus with the Opposition on amendments is definitely of news value as the subject is of national interest.
It is understandable that the government is not enthusiastic in airing the controversy when it has been found to have greatly slipped up in the way it drafted the scheme and, even more so, in the way it passed through the necessary amendments to the existing law without adequately consulting the Opposition and, for that matter, the country before going ahead with it.
The Nationalist Party accused the national broadcaster of not immediately reporting what the minister said in order not to embarrass the government. The station eventually opted to report the news on December 8.
When he was replying to criticism, the minister told the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament in Brussels that investors interested in getting a Maltese passport would have to have a better bonding with the island, including the “need to reside in Malta, and, ideally, also to have some property in Malta”.
These requirements are essentially what most people expect to see in the scheme. They also make up the recommendations made by the Nationalist Party but the government was in no mood to listen to reason and pressed on regardless of the clear opposition to the scheme as presented in Parliament.
The minister went further than this. He said the government also had in mind introducing a capping on the number of people that could be given a Maltese passport, allaying fears that Chinese millionaires will be applying for the passport in droves. His remark that “there should have been less haste” speaks volumes. Also striking are the sharp differences that emerged in statements by two ministers over the utilisation of part of the money expected to be derived from the scheme.
Prof. Scicluna’s comments indicated a shift in position and therefore it is of news value. Thus, the Nationalist Party had good reason to accuse the broadcaster of censoring the news.
PBS said it would have been guilty of bias had it taken selected parts of the minister’s speech and interpreted them out of context. The whole country is aware of the context. All the station had to do was to convey to the public the parts of the minister’s speech that made news in other media outlets. There was absolutely no need for interpretation.
This was no ordinary party event but a government minister trying to make up for the harm the scheme has done to Malta’s image abroad.
For too many years, we have had a State broadcaster unwilling to report certain events in order to avoid being accused of upsetting any political party. Unfortunately, this is a recipe for bland news and the perfect platform to be accused of censorship. PBS is there to serve the public, not any political party or the government.