The Times has already commented editorially on the duty of the media to report fully and fairly about developments during the election campaign, now in its final four days. On the other side of the coin there are, however, media users. If in the case of the media's duties, truth is the first victim in an electoral campaign, from a consumer's viewpoint, the desire to know the truth is a close second. These two realities are inter-connected as the media are not always harbingers of truth because there are media consumers who do not always want to know the truth.
Just like the media has its own duties, so too have media users and those who ought to defend them during an election campaign.
It is unfortunate that many cease being alert and discriminating media users due to the high temperatures generated by electoral campaigns. Instead of seeking alternative sources of information, quite a good number congregate on party media which have now become 24/7 propaganda machines. Party supporters who confine their media use to propaganda tools would, of course, be reneging on their duty to vote after making an informed decision. Such a decision can only be taken if one exposes oneself to reliable information and to diverse sources. Given that no one source of information gives all shades of meaning and in all aspects of an argument the use of multiple sources is a must.
It is very positive that consumers have become much more conscious than before of their right to receive value for money. Consumers insist that clothes have care labels, food packets include the nutritional values of the product, toys indicate the age when they should be used etc. Yet, when it comes to the media many willingly and happily accept limitations on their rights. Quite a few not only accept this but, through their support, positively encourage such an attitude.
What is more negative is that those who should enlighten or defend the interests of the people are conspicuous by their absence in this process of misinformation. One cannot not notice the meager presence of academics/intellectuals in the political debate. Contributions by academics are few and far between. In a recent report in The Times about Labour's proposal for a reception class a number of academics agreed to comment only on condition of anonymity!
The role the Broadcasting Authority plays or should be playing, of course, takes centre stage in this regard. As the broadcasting watchdog it is expected to defend the people's rights to have a full and fair picture of what is going on but more often than not it appears to be more inclined in upholding the rights of myopic politicians. For example, it instructed the University radio station, Campus FM, to "ensure that insofar as current affairs programmes are concerned, including newspaper analysis, all presenters should not comment on the contents of the articles referred to in their news reporting, and be as factual as possible to avoid falling foul of the constitutional and legal provisions on impartiality".
How can one analyse a newspaper without commenting on content?
Such instructions become even more perplexing when one realises how the political stations are allowed to ravage news and current affairs with constant propaganda. The end result is that, while allowing others to try to drum propaganda down people's throats, even in news bulletins, the constitutional body that, apart from ensuring due impartiality, is also expected to provide for quality broadcasting, appears to be censuring an intelligent and discerning voice.
The attitude of self censure by John Citizen is not a correct attitude but, once academics/intellectuals censure themselves in this way, is it surprising that many members of the public do the same? And when the constitutional body set up to defend the rights of the people for decent communication ceases fails to deliver is it astonishing that many people do the same?
Like the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the Malta Broadcasting Authority too needs to be reformed.