TMIS Editorial: The judge, PBS and the silence that followed – Malta Independent Online

Government and, by default, the Labour Party have a very efficient communications machine. Some see it close to that of a country where there is some form of dictatorship. The amount of propaganda that is dished out, on a daily basis, is almost asphyxiating.

Then, each time someone, somewhere, says something against the government, or which does not fit the narrative the administration wants to portray, the government or the Labour Party, or both, are quick to respond with an alternative version, one that seeks to immediately stifle the negative impact that such criticism brings about.

There have been occasions when the Nationalist Party holds a press conference and, even before this is reported on news websites or the PN itself issues an official statement about the proceedings, the PL or the government issues a press release with the counter-arguments. The idea is to have what the PN is saying smothered by the Labours side of the story.

Immediately, so as to limit the damage right from the start.

So when Labour remains silent on a news item that is, to many, of great importance, that news item must contain a strong element of truth which the PL finds hard to oppose. In such cases, the strategy is to ignore in the hope that it goes away quickly.

One recent development which Labour chose to disregard was the judgment given by Mr Justice Grazio Mercieca on a case filed by the PN against the Broadcasting Authority, Public Broadcasting Services, the government and the State Advocate. The PN complained of pro-government bias on PBS, which translated into little coverage of public statements made by the Opposition Leader.

The case was filed before the election, but the ruling came after. This delay was addressed by the judge in his sentence: Because of the very limited timeframe, even this court was not in a position to decide the case before the election. If there was an imbalance against the plaintiff, it could not obtain any remedy before the election, which was the time most fitting for a remedy.

In his decision, the judge ruled that pluralism is an important factor in the right to freedom of expression. The State does not only have the negative obligation, not to interfere or stifle freedom of expression, but it also has the positive obligation to create a legislative and administrative framework which guarantees effective pluralism.

But the judgment went beyond that.

At this stage, this court cannot fail to make a comment of a general nature in an attempt, even if it remains a solitary voice in the desert, to stop the oppression of the right to freedom of expression. It seems to have become an unwritten convention in Maltese politics that the winner takes all. The winner uses the power of incumbency to its limits, including broadcast media. The loser calls it shameful and every now and then protests, also through the courts. Then, when the page is turned (and the party in government changes), now victorious, it falls into shame by itself committing (the same) abuses. And so the story repeats itself. This game of cat and mouse must be eradicated once and for all.

The court is correct in every aspect of this ruling, except on one thing. It says that it is a voice in the desert, but it is not. The way PBS (and its predecessors) is used by the political party in power to subject its viewers and listeners to government propaganda has been harshly criticised for years on end, under different administrations.

Older generations, who remember the 1980s, will recall how then Xandir Malta was so controlled by the Labour government that not even the name of the Opposition Leader was allowed to be mentioned.

In todays age, we have not arrived at that stage, but it is true that the way news is reported by PBS these days is wrapped in Labour colours. It is being done more subtly than 40 years ago, but it is being done nonetheless.

It is shameful that public broadcasting is used in this way. PBS is sustained by taxes paid by all of us, and as such should provide a balanced and impartial service.

It does not.

And it does not happen only in news bulletins, in particular the 8pm slot where, day after day, and in particular when an election is approaching, the time is used to push the governments agenda down our collective throat while giving little importance to anything which could put the administration in bad light.

It also happens in current affairs programmes, and even in magazine shows, which should be providing light, educational and informative entertainment, but where the underlying message is that everything, in this country, is perfect.

Its not, and PBS has the duty to be unbiased.

But it is more likely that pigs fly.

Read more here:

TMIS Editorial: The judge, PBS and the silence that followed - Malta Independent Online