If, like Malta-born Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, we believe that the press is an essential ingredient in society, as important as an independent judiciary, then we must all do everything in our power to defend it.
The decision made by the Broadcasting Authority on Tuesday, giving the right to political parties to call the shots in political TV programmes, is a serious blow to the freedom of the press and a grave affront to all those who have had enough of politicians wanting to haunt every corner of their life.
The Broadcasting Authority is there to ensure that “due impartiality is preserved in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and that broadcasting facilities and time are fairly apportioned between people belonging to different political parties”. So can its chairman and board members kindly explain how the above constitutional provision would be violated if Public Broadcasting Services decides to hold a discussion programme, choose a topic and invites participants of its choice?
The Labour Party objected to the person invited by PBS for a chat show and wanted to send somebody else.
It took the matter to the Broadcasting Authority, which opted to take the line of least resistance, not rock the boat and decide that “there is no reason to change the system, which seems to have worked satisfactorily over the past years for all parties”.
Evidently, the parties are more important to this ‘robust’ constitutional body than broadcasting standards, the audience and the State broadcaster put together.
True, we are talking of the State broadcaster here, so it shoulders bigger responsibilities than private TV stations or any other medium. But the broadcasting watchdog should only bark and bite if the State broadcaster breaks the rules.
A station producing a programme, including one of a political nature, has every right to decide on everything, from A to Z, including who to invite. Provided, of course, that the laws are respected and it behaves in an ethical manner.
Political parties have the right too to demand their representatives obtain clearance from them to attend. What they do not have the right to do is impose a guest. And the Broadcasting Authority has no right to interfere in this.
The situation becomes even more baffling when considering what the PBS chairman had to say. He indicated that the matter had been raised with the chairman of the Broadcasting Authority who “showed no objection”.
So, what happened? Did the broadcasting regulator’s chairman change his mind or did the board overrule him?
The bottom line is that the political parties have had it their way again. This was a ‘victory’ for Labour, which, of course, the Nationalist Party and any other party can benefit from.
The people have lost and so has the media. A free press should not only enjoy rights on paper but also in practice, including being able to make its own decisions, unhindered by shackles of any sort, political or otherwise.
This time it was about who could be guest. Next time it might well be the topic chosen, the set, the signature tune and what have you.
This is an attack on the freedom of the press and, again, to quote Lord Judge, an old boy of St Edward’s College, in a country governed by the rule of law, the independence of the press is a constitutional necessity.