Broadcasting Authority replies to PBS judicial protest

The Broadcasting Authority has filed a counter-protest in the First Hall of the Civil Court, rebutting allegations made against it in a judicial protest by Public Broadcasting Services Ltd.

The company had protested about the decision taken by the authority on February 11 in which PBS was requested to submit copies of the programme Xarabank to be broadcast on February 14 and for the period between February 17-21.

In its counter-protest the authority declared that PBS had, on February 3, delivered its schedule of programmes for the period in which the referendum campaign was to take place.

This schedule had been approved by the authority.

Subsequently, on February 7, PBS had requested the authority to allow it to amend this schedule in the sense that the programme Xarabank for February 14 would be an edited version of the course of discussions on the European Union aired in previous programmes.

PBS had also requested the authority to allow it to broadcast different editions of Xarabank between February 17-28.

The company had planned to air Xarabank in a 20-minute version between Mondays and Fridays under the name "Xarabank: Iva, Le u Ma Nafx", in which programmes a group of participants would discuss Malta's entry into the EU.

The authority added that this request had not yet been decided upon for the authority had to examine the implications of such broadcasting at a time when the law imposed upon both the authority and PBS rigorous standards of impartiality and balance.

The authority added that on February 8 the Labour Party had filed a complaint with the authority stating that it was informed that the programme Xarabank would be broadcast every day with effect from February 17.

The MLP added that it was not confident that the person responsible for the running of PBS would respect the Broadcasting Act and the Constitution when drawing up the station's schedule of broadcasts.

It was following this complaint that the authority had requested PBS to provide it with copies of the programmes in issue, so that preventive steps could be taken to ensure that the programmes would be broadcast without any violation of the law.

The authority added that to date PBS had failed to submit the requested information, and the amendments to the programme schedules could not therefore be approved.

The authority added that its directive and its requirement to approve the broadcasting schedules were aimed at ensuring that due balance and impartiality in broadcasting would be maintained, and not simply so that the authority would be aware of the programmes being broadcast.

It added that it would continue to carry out its legal obligations notwithstanding the unfounded allegations made against it by PBS or by the media which had accused the authority of censorship.

In its counter-protest the authority added that its directives had been issued in the same spirit as other regulations that were normally issued during general elections, and were required to ensure balance in broadcasting on matters of political controversy or of current public policy.

In this particular case the authority was worried that these criteria of impartiality and balance might not be rigorously respected, for not only was the authority deprived of the information it had requested, but it appeared that the programme was going to be produced and directed by a person who had recently publicly declared his position in favour of the decision on which the electorate was going to vote.

This consideration did not of itself mean that there was lack of impartiality and balance, but the authority declared that it was fully justified in carrying out its investigations before authorising any change to the broadcasting schedule.

The authority denied that it was censoring any programmes, but added that it was its duty to guard against the possibility that public broadcasting could be manipulated for any partisan interests, particularly in times of popular consultations.

The reciprocal accusations made by the political parties in this regard were evidence of this risk. Furthermore, the public broadcasting service had to be always in full control of programmes to be aired, prior to the programmes being broadcast.

The authority added that this principle was to be applied more carefully when a programme was being farmed out, and it was therefore unacceptable for PBS to claim that it was not in a position to confirm when the relevant tape recording of the programme Xarabank would be in its possession, as this depended upon the producers of the programme.

In its counter-protest the authority argued that it could not understand how it was being accused of censorship by PBS. The authority wished to ensure that different opinions about Malta's membership in the EU or other alternatives would be aired, so that there would be actual pluralism in broadcasting, and broadcasting would be balanced and impartial.

The approval of PBS' broadcasting schedule was not a managerial decision of PBS, as that company had implied. On the contrary, the programmes schedule could be decided upon by a television station after the latter consulted with the authority and the authority had approved it.

The authority's request to see the programme in advance had to be considered as an exercise of the authority's rights to ensure that there was no violation of the Constitution or of the Broadcasting Act.

The authority denied that it had been influenced in its decisions by the behaviour of the political parties, nor would it be influenced by spurious and unfounded allegations of censorship.

PBS, said the authority, was bound to observe the authority's directives, and it could not shirk its responsibilities by passing them on to third parties who were entrusted with the productions of programmes on politically controversial matters at such a delicate time.

In conclusion, the authority called upon PBS to stop its challenge to the authority, and to conform fully with the authority's directives.

Prof. Ian Refalo signed the counter-protest.