Laws and regulations governing broadcasting are primarily meant to ensure the highest ethical and legal standards possible. Any constraints set by regulators are those deemed absolutely necessary, such as guarding against hate speech. The Malta Broadcasting Authority, did the opposite, twice punishing a radio station for keeping a racist at bay.
The bizarre decision can only be interpreted as a guarantee that even those declared by the court of fomenting racial hatred should have a platform on the media. Such a detestable stand makes the position of the BA untenable.
The Church’s radio, RTK103, was fined more than €11,000 in the space of under eight months because the presenter of a discussion programme exercised his right to decide who to invite to his talk show. Norman Lowell was a no go.
A couple of points deserve highlighting.
The broadcasting watchdog’s board secretary, Adriano Spiteri, served as secretary of Imperium Europa – Lowell’s party – until 2022. It is, at best, incongruent that, in such circumstances, he should have been allowed to attend the hearings.
A complaint by the party was filed in late May. In a sitting on June 6, just two days before the European and local elections, it emerged the station had not yet received a copy of the complaint, and the hearing was put off to give it time to prepare its case.
The party wanted the matter to be treated with urgency, but the board disagreed. The final decision bears the date of August 21.
If the regulator felt the failing was so serious that the station should be fined, why did it not make an effort to conclude it before the electoral campaign ended? The Constitutional Court had already observed in another case that, in broadcasting, speed was crucial to ensure an effective remedy.
The whole issue revolves around a proviso of a directive issued in mid-April. This speaks of “due impartiality” and “a wide representation of different opinions”.
By due impartiality one usually understands not favouring one party over another. It does not necessarily mean allocating the same time to every view or that every argument and every side of such argument must be represented.
The US used to have the Fairness Doctrine, whereby broadcasters had to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. However, in the mid-1980s, it was deemed that the provision was not in the public interest and even breached the right to freedom of expression. Sadly, such thought has still to evolve in the broadcasting authority’s boardroom.
As to different opinions, surely it is not only ‘official’ party representatives who can take a stand for or against what a political party preaches. Should RTK, even because of its ethos, especially it being a private entity, be penalised if, rather than having a racist on the air it has a guest able to discuss such delicate issues without resorting to hate speech?
But, perhaps, the Labour and Nationalist representatives on the BA’s board wanted to avoid setting a precedent. One in which divergent views could be clearly made, in perfect harmony with the legal provisions of fairness and balance in broadcasting, by individuals not handpicked by the political parties themselves but by the medium.
In its deliberations and, more so, in its final decision, the Broadcasting Authority board opted to grant itself the editorial prerogative that should only belong to the journalists.
It is a decision that would even make dinosaurs raise an eyebrow.
The last thing Malta needs is state-sponsored racism.