The Broadcasting Authority has specific duties assigned to it both under the Constitution and the Broadcasting Act.
It must ensure due impartiality when dealing with issues of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy; apportion facilities and time fairly between members of different political parties; and impose sanctions for “administrative offences” committed under the Broadcasting Act.
It has now also arrogated to itself the right to tell private production houses who to invite for programmes transmitted by the State broadcaster. This amounts to downgrading seasoned journalists and private producers to mere timekeepers.
This is unacceptable, indeed abominable, in a democratic country where press freedom is an essential mainstay.
Still, nobody should be surprised because the broadcasting authority’s track record proves beyond doubt that the two large political parties can call the shots and put their own interests before anything else, even the national good.
This time it was the Nationalist Party which proved the point as the Labour Party did before. It will continue happening unless action is taken to turn this broadcasting dinosaur into an efficient mechanism befitting today’s media landscape. But who will bell the cat?
A month ago, the weekly TVM programme Times Talk, produced and presented by Times of Malta, wanted to discuss the traffic problem and invited the main protagonist in studio – Transport Minister Joe Mizzi – together with two independent experts.
Because balance and fairness have always been the hallmarks of this media organisation, Times of Malta invited both the PN and Alternattiva Demokratika to have their say too, either through a live phone call or a recorded interview. AD accepted but the PN refused, insisting a representative should be in studio too.
When Times Talk stuck to its plans, the PN took the case to the Broadcasting Authority, demanding “equality of arms” in terms of article 119 of the Constitution.
The authority, made up of an independent chairman and four members whose names are submitted by the two big parties, preferred to give a restricted interpretation of the ‘impartiality’ clause, deeming the PN complaint justified. Still, it did not order a remedy, as if to prove it only wanted to keep the parties happy.
This is not the first time the supposedly national broadcasting watchdog effectively opted to give a carte blanche to political parties to determine who should take part in a programme of a political or industrial nature on the State broadcaster. It bears repeating what Times of Malta had commented upon editorially seven years ago: “The Broadcasting Authority’s first duty is towards the people and the Constitution. Rather than capitulating to a political party, it should have ensured with the programme producers that there would be a divergence of views during the TV debate.”
Times Talk had a format that ensured a divergence of views but, still, the PN expected to dictate to the producers what to do and the authority concluded that the political party was right. This decision says a lot about the sort of broadcasting standards it pursues.
Anybody who watched the November 5 programme knows Mr Mizzi was intensively grilled by our journalists, who raised all the pertinent questions with the minister, who is ultimately tasked with overseeing the transport portfolio of a democratically-elected government. We did not need a PN representative to achieve “balance”.
This latest decision is an insult to the people, an affront to serious journalism as well as a clear indication that the Broadcasting Authority, in its present format, is outdated.