A penalty incurred by PBS for failing to publish a right of reply by the Nationalist Party, was suspended by the Broadcasting Authority when the reply was published, albeit three months late, a court heard on Tuesday.
The decision was revealed by a BA official in a court case instituted by the Nationalist Party, which is claiming that its rights were breached by the public broadcaster’s political bias and propaganda.
During another hearing on Friday, the court heard how PBS had ignored a direction by the Broadcasting Authority for publication of the PN’s right of reply over an issue concerning the newly inaugurated Marsa flyover project.
An interview aired during the PBS show TVAM had been deemed as “rather extensive and may have amounted to propaganda,” the Authority had declared.
But it took a second complaint by the PN, followed by a €4,660 penalty by the Authority, for that direction to be implemented by PBS, three months after the party’s initial complaint.
When summoned back to the witness stand on Tuesday, PBS executive chairman Mark Sammut mentioned that that penalty had been somehow “cancelled.”
That information prompted PN lawyers Paul Borg Olivier and Francis Zammit Dimech to request further explanation from the Authority’s CEO, Joanna Spiteri, who was following proceedings before Mr Justice Grazio Mercieca.
Spiteri said that after the fine had been issued, PBS emailed the Authority asking on what basis the penalty was imposed. The Authority duly replied, citing the relative provision of the Broadcasting Act.
But once the Authority’s directive was implemented and the PN’s right of reply published, the Authority held an internal discussion, after consulting its legal adviser, and decided to “suspend execution” of the fine, on condition that PBS did not fail again to abide by the Authority’s directions.
That decision was communicated to PBS, explained Spiteri.
PBS did not request waiver of BA fine
Asked whether PBS had specifically requested waiver of the fine, the witness replied, “No. It was the Authority on its own free will.”
“The Broadcasting Authority is only interested in seeing that its directions are followed, ”remarked Ian Refalo, counsel to the Authority.
Earlier questions were directed to PBS chief officer transmissions and programmes, Frans Lia, in an attempt by the PN’s lawyers to determine who was ultimately responsible for a decision to “sandwich” 30-second PN adverts between government ads.
Those “fillers” were part of the PBS’s normal, day-to-day, long-established practice, said Lia, explaining that in his 45-year experience in the field he always recalled following such procedure.
Fillers were government “informative” spots which, unlike paid adverts, were not time-scheduled but inserted according to the time and other adverts available.
Asked why the PN spots had been “sandwiched” between the government spots, Lia said that since the number of adverts decreased, fillers had to be increased accordingly.
But adverts appeared to have dropped on the very day after the BA’s directive to grant the PN the 30-second spots, remarked Borg Olivier, asking why PBS had not opted for other spots, such as those concerning blood donation and water conservation.
“Because those are not the same genre,” said Lia.
And the duration of the spots also had to be taken into consideration, added the witness.
“And how come the fillers stopped when the PN spot did?” went on Borg Olivier.
“All fillers stopped,” answered Lia, explaining that the government ads were to be broadcast over a certain period, from one date to another.
Those dates were communicated verbally to PBS from the Office of the Prime Minister, but the time of airing of those government ads was left to the discretion of the State broadcaster.
Asked about the particular sequence chosen, Lia said that as with other adverts, fillers were not aired “back to back,” by way of explaining why the government ads had been inserted before and after the PN spot.
The case continues in April.
Lawyers Paul Borg Olivier and Francis Zammit Dimech are assisting the applicant.
State Advocate Chris Soler, together with lawyers Ian Refalo, Edward Gatt, Mark Vassallo and Carina Bugeja Testa are representing the respondents.