Journalists discuss code for the broadcasting media

The proposed code on news and current affairs programmes broadcast on public, private and political stations was yesterday discussed at a seminar for journalists, bringing to the fore a number of media concerns and occasionally turning into a political ping pong.

The draft code, as revised and updated by the advisory committee on news and current affairs, was approved by the Broadcasting Authority, which organised the seminar at the Halland Hotel, in St Andrew's as part of the consultation process and to obtain feedback and ensure a broad consensus from broadcasters, who would, after all, be implementing the code.

When it is finally approved, the code will be integrated into broadcasting legislation.

Among the points raised at the seminar was the fact that TV and radio stations were run by political parties and, therefore, lacked objectivity. However, broadcasters said every medium had an editorial line.

"Every station has its own editorial line. If they did not, they could close down and issue one bulletin," said Gino Cauchi from Super One.

Journalist Noel Grima remarked that the news was available "in triplicate" and, when added together, the contradictory versions did not offer the real picture.

The three news bulletins on different stations only tallied when they dealt with accidents and other tragedies, Fr Grima said, otherwise there were three versions of any other event, leaving the public grappling with the truth.

Mr Cauchi went on to condone the fact that the news bulletin of one political station had a different slant to another. Viewers were aware of each station's agenda and watched the bulletins with the right frame of mind, he argued.

The problem lay with the "so-called" independent stations, which gave their own version of events under the guise of independence, which was ethically incorrect.

While considering the draft code to be a positive initiative, questions were asked as to how it would be implemented. Alone, the code would not serve to solve the shortcomings and defects in the field, Fr Grima said.

The issue fundamentally concerned ownership and the BA could accomplish little if operators continued to squeeze their media to reduce costs.

Fr Grima pointed out that PBS journalists were scrutinised and monitored, while those of the political party stations were allowed a free hand.

Pierre Portelli, from Medialink, questioned the practicality of the code and pointed out that it was drafted by people who had minimal hands-on experience of broadcast journalism.

Tonio Bonello, from RTK, felt the code should also bind the BA as the watchdog of the media and insisted on enforcement to improve the level of broadcasting in Malta.

BA chairman Joseph Said Pullicino said the code alone solved nothing and had to be reflected in the activity of those concerned.

Although it had a regulatory function, the BA should not have to use its whip for every word that was uttered. This was an outdated approach.

Malta was still far from churning out a class of journalists who were independent from their employers, but was heading in that direction, Dr Said Pullicino said.

The BA had launched the draft code, which stresses the need for impartiality, last March, and was awaiting feedback from the stations and the public.

The code insists that news bulletins should be impartial and bars officials or representatives from political parties or trade unions from taking part in the production or presentation of news.

A clause stating that "a news item shall consist of reporting the occurrence of a fact - which could be an event, statement, or publication of a document - shorn of any comment" exempts political stations from such an obligation.

Private stations had the right to an editorial voice so long as it did not change the substance of the news item.

A section of the code dealing with news states that a news item has to be factual or, at the very least, based on fact.

"Conjectures, distortions, remarks, opinions, judgments or convictions should not be allowed whether they are termed as comments or opinions and whether they are related to the item in question or not, simply because they can - and usually do - mislead the audience and lead to confusion as to whether the so-called comments, or opinion, are what the station/newscaster thinks, or whether it results from the fact being reported."

In the section on news bulletins, the code insists that opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.