Broadcasting Authority's decision seriously wrong

That the BA's decision came out in favour of the MLP was no surprise. It seemed a foregone conclusion which echoed the readiness with which the BA cut short the wonderful series of readings from Herbert Ganado's "Kif Rajt Malta Tinbidel" on Radju Bronja on the absurd grounds that comments on the readings came only "from a person coming from one political sphere".

The arguments BA has given us in defence of its decision to allow the MLP to air its views on national television are naïve and seriously flawed. The decision to allow only one political party airtime is detrimental to a just outcome to the debate on membership in the EU. This kind of thing should not be allowed to happen.

A fundamental weakness in the BA's argument is its total failure to distinguish between an information centre and a political party. Consequently the BA wrongly considers the MIC and a political party propaganda apparatus as comparable entities, which they are not.

The purpose of the MIC is to provide factual information whereas a political party tries to persuade the viewer to agree with its aspirations by every means possible.

Unfortunately AD have clouded the issue by clamouring for its share of airtime for the wrong reasons. AD claims that the information disseminated by the MIC does not reflect "AD's vision of Malta's relation with the EU". This claim is unjustified since the MIC is not there to reflect "visions" of any political party but to provide objective information.

One argument in defence of the BA's decision is that "the remedy that had been given to the MLP was meant to make up for the imbalance in the facts which had resulted from the MIC broadcasts".

This is simply not true. There was no such imbalance. Contrary to what the BA asserts, it is perfectly possible to present facts in an impartial way.

Facts presented in an unbiased manner are not views, visions or opinions - and they are certainly not propaganda. The purpose of the MIC is to provide unbiased information - and this it has done. On the other hand it is normal for political parties of whatever hue to thrive on propaganda. Allowing only one political party the opportunity of broadcasting propaganda disguised as facts while denying others the opportunity to reply creates an imbalance.

The MLP has cast suspicion on the MIC because it is an entity created by the current Nationalist government. The BA should be mature and impartial enough not to allow this to influence its judgement.

The issue which should have been settled in the first place is whether the MIC exceeded its brief by skewing its information in favour of the EU or reflecting the views of a particular political party.

If this is found to be the case then the MIC spots should be censored or taken off the air. Once it is concluded that the MIC is giving an objective non-partisan version of the facts, then the issue becomes one of balancing the situation by giving all three political parties equal time on national television - or none at all.

The BA maintains that that MIC spots "expressed the facts relevant only to those who considered 'full membership' as the road which the country should follow". This assertion is untrue and nonsensical. The BA must be aware that MIC provides information both to those in favour and against membership in the EU and that nobody will argue that such information is relevant to those in favour of membership and against it.

The BA was reported elsewhere as saying "to maintain the necessary balance meant ensuring impartiality on facts". This impartiality is the crux of the matter.

The BA conveniently refers only to the dissemination of accurate information, i.e., so-called 'impartial facts'. It ignores the reality that, besides "facts", there are numerous other possibilities, such as propaganda, speculation, exaggeration, distortion, and a host of other devices aimed at influencing peoples' minds - and that these are especially beloved by political parties.

This is why the decision to allow only one political party a slot is so unjust. So long as the MIC limits itself to verifiable facts in a non-selective way, a situation where the MLP alone is permitted to broadcast its stand cannot be regarded as impartial.

If there is to be debate it is essential for those on both sides of the debate to have access to the truth, namely, the facts - and not political propaganda from whichever party.

The MIC was created to fulfil this need. Its purpose is to provide facts, not propaganda or speculation as political parties might do. In its edict, the BA allows the MLP to broadcast propaganda largely based on speculation and not facts, if it so wishes. The other political parties are gagged and not allowed to dispute any claims made by the opposition. This is not impartiality.

The BA bases another line of argument on the incorrect assertion that there is a tangible alternative to membership in the EU. Thus the BA states "the MIC only considered the possibility of membership which could create an imbalance because it discarded the facts on which the alternative to membership is based". This is absurd.

There is no factual alternative - the alternative is pure speculation. We either become members of the EU or stay out. The "alternative" of opting to stay out of the EU is simply that of Malta remaining as it is now and its citizens hoping that whichever political party is in power will succeed in negotiating a favourable package of agreements with the EU to give us the standard of living for which we are striving.

The MIC was set up to provide information on the conditions of membership in the EU. The MIC can hardly be expected to provide information about non-membership since there will be no conditions. All the conditions that Malta will have successfully negotiated as a basis for entry into the EU will disappear if we opt out of membership. We will simply be back at square one. It is anybody's guess what we will ultimately succeed in securing from the EU once we have stayed out

In the circumstances, does the BA honestly believe that the MIC can provide factual information on which conditions (as yet undefined) Malta will negotiate with the EU in the event that Malta goes for the mythical 'Switzerland in the Mediterranean' option?

Does the BA believe that the MIC can predict which conditions (if any) the EU will agree to enter into with Malta? There are no guarantees that the conditions Malta might want to negotiate with the EU will be granted. We have been repeatedly told that there is no à la carte.

Most ridiculous of all is the BA's comment that "...the PN and AD had never complained that the MIC did not faithfully show the facts about this policy" (presumably that of joining the EU).

The implication here is that because the MIC never upset the PN or AD it must be biased in their favour. Does the BA expect the AD or PN to complain if MIC was carrying out its duty correctly in providing impartial information?

Can the BA submit evidence that MIC was being selective by emphasising the good points of the EU and downplaying the bad points? This is an unjust accusation.

The MIC has always been honest in giving equal weight to all aspects, good and bad, of membership in the EU. MIC always gave equal importance to problems that membership might bring with it. The MIC even broadcasts spots devoted exclusively to the disadvantages of membership in the EU.

Does the BA expect the MIC to suppress certain positive items of information just to maintain a "balance" in order not to upset the MLP? For instance, should the MIC suppress objective information on the advantages of EU citizenship, or acceptance of the Maltese language as an official EU language so as not to upset the MLP and anti-EU lobby?

One cannot help the feeling that the BA has made a wrong decision and that it is now trying to justify this decision to save face.

There is a lot a stake here, the future of our country depends on the decision which lies ahead of us.

We must get it right.

As citizens of Malta, we have a right to be informed accurately on any issue that affects us and our country in order that we might make the correct choice when the time comes to voting in the referendum.

It will be a tragedy for Malta if a wrong decision regarding our entry into the EU is reached because of ignorance and misinformation.

MIC has an important function in imparting a correct view of the matter. Since the EU issue has become so controversial, the BA bears a heavy responsibility.

This time the BA has got it seriously wrong. The PN and AD must not allow this decision to pass unchallenged.