From time to time, we are inundated by claims of perceived imbalance in broadcasting by the Nationalist or the Labour party in favour of one party to the detriment of the other. Protests of this form are sometimes entertained and at other times rejected by the Broadcasting Authority, with the latter giving reasons when such pleas are rejected.
Readers are aware that both the PN and the PL each have a TV station: Net TV and One TV respectively, dedicated to daily party propaganda. They decide what is newsworthy and what is not.
In the run-up to the European elections, we were fed with pictures of hopefuls on Net TV in the case of candidates on the PN ticket and on One TV in the case of candidates standing for the PL. This indoctrination took place on a daily basis.
Pictures of Alternattiva Demokratika, Imperium Europa and the rest of the candidates rarely featured. The PN and the PL consider this state of affairs, that is, almost ignoring in total other political forces except their own, as constituting a political balance. They assume that they have a handle on the truth.
Is this what our rubber Constitution is tolerating with regard to the so-called balance in broadcasting? Does the EU take into account political imbalance in broadcasting? If in the affirmative, what sort of action does it normally take?
I voted for the EU in the hope that, beyond 2004, there would be a positive injection in democracy. There was none.
The PN and the PL guard their territory with German tenacity and Swiss precision. Citizens are for the two main parties and not the other way round! What exactly did I and the rest of us vote for in 2004? Who will guard the guards?
The PN and the PL guard their territory with German tenacity and Swiss precision
We are told that the President of Malta is the guardian of the Constitution. Previous ones were mainly concerned with raising money for charity. If they set charity collection as their main role, they run the risk of being perceived as church sacristans. Money is collected for the Puttinu campaign to have shelters in London for people who accompany their cancer-stricken relatives.
This is to be commended but if I remember correctly, the PN government had bought Dar Malta—Malta House in Brussels. Ironically therefore, the Maltese are being told to dig further into their pockets when their government can afford such nonsensical luxuries as Dar Malta.
Peppi Azzopardi of Xarabank has so far failed miserably to take up arms in favour of those pensioners who paid maxi-mum national insurance (NI) contributions and are receiving one third of what they were supposed to get in terms of an NI pension according to the contractual regulations in force on joining the civil service prior to 1979. Azzopardi, who I hold in high esteem, knows full well that such a malpractice of reducing paid-up pensions does not apply in the case of members of Parliament. So far, the former civil servants have not been and are not being guaranteed any restitution.
How is that for an imbalance between MPs and pre-1979 civil servants? Would the TV presenter be biting more than he can chew if he brings this case, which has dragged on throughout the 35 years in power by the PL/PN tandem, to the fore in his Xarabank programme?
Pre-1979 pensioners are still awaiting to see a trickle of justice done in their regard. A €1,466 adjustment had indicated recognition by the PN government that the plight of pre-79 workers is fully understood. The intention was good but, then again, the road to hell is full of good intentions.
Should not the President of Malta intervene or is the republic waiting for us to die?