I understand the time pressures under which the media works. Time is short, newspapers have deadlines to meet. But that does not excuse the media for abdicating their role of acting as watchdogs, especially where the political parties are concerned.

I am referring in particular to the report PN Accuses Joseph Muscat Of Trying To Gag Media (July 30) in which The Times reported a Nationalist Party statement about a development permit for Dr Muscat's house in Burmarrad. I am assuming it is a statement by the PN but the report does not say it is. The report could be a summary of comments made on the telephone, for all I know. The report starts off by saying that "The Nationalist Party yesterday accused Labour leader Joseph Muscat of trying to put pressure on the media not to report on a case about a development permit for his house in Burmarrad".

Six other paragraphs follow this opening paragraph but nowhere is it explained how, in the PN's view, Dr Muscat was trying to put pressure on the media. In paraphrasing the PN statement The Times either missed the point, which is rather crucial, or else the PN just made the accusation without backing it up and The Times just went ahead and published the accusation, without trying to get the PN to say how Dr Muscat was trying to gag the media. Meaning, of course, that The Times was accepting, without having any proof for the claim, what the PN was saying.

The accusation is serious, as I am sure readers will agree, and for The Times to be so obliging to the PN is just as serious. I can understand the political parties throwing mud at each other, and very often making fools of themselves in the eyes of readers who do not blindly believe what they read, but for The Times to make a fool of itself is more than readers expect.

The Times is widely seen as being favourably biased for the PN. To accept such statements from the PN without questioning them proves that perception to be well-founded.