If the state broadcaster has no qualms censoring the pope and getting away with it, what would stop it silencing the party in opposition?
PBS has always been a mouthpiece of the party in power. Rather than promoting pluralism in broadcasting and ensuring impartiality, as it is bound to do by law, the station is not much better than a government noticeboard.
The situation has now reached a stage that led a superior court judge to make a heartfelt appeal for the ‘winner takes all’ situation to change and for the right for freedom of expression to no longer be trampled on
Acknowledging that his would likely remain a voice in the wilderness, Mr Justice Grazio Mercieca wanted to underscore what the right of freedom of expression truly means.
In a declaration promulgated by the French National Assembly in 1789, he pointed out, the free communication of thought and opinion had been described as “one of the post precious rights of man”.
Also, the first amendment to the US constitution lays down that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”.
The European Court of Human Rights enunciated that “freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and each individual’s self-fulfillment”.
The state, the judge ruled, is not only duty bound not to stifle the right to freedom of expression itself, or through its own broadcasting station, but must also ensure an adequate legislative and administrative structure is in place guaranteeing effective pluralism so this right is not even breached by private entities/persons.
The Nationalist Party’s right to freedom of expression, he found, was breached when PBS ignored an order by the Broadcasting Authority for a right of reply and the regulator, in turn, dragged its feet to take further action when this happened.
The winner takes all and the power of incumbency the judge raised in his judgment – and which probably led him to conclude his is a voice in the wilderness – are unlikely to change. More so in the case of public broadcasting.
An expert team from the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions on Human Rights, which monitored last March’s election, put it very bluntly: PBS “lacks independence from the government” and the “Broadcasting Authority should monitor and enforce legal obligations for impartiality and accuracy in broadcasting and provide due remedies”.
When the violation noted by the judge occurred, broadcasting fell under a minister found guilty of breaching the code of ethics and facing serious allegations of links with the underworld, which he denies.
The politician now responsible for broadcasting is the same person who, in January 2020, was found to have violated protestors’ right to freedom of expression when he repeatedly ordered flowers and candles to be removed from a makeshift memorial following the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia.
In a healthy democracy where what truly prevails is the rule of law and not the arrogant power of incumbency, this latest judgment would have been followed by resignations.
But, in Malta, maintaining the government noticeboard without any semblance of constructive criticism remains more essential than promoting one of the most precious human rights for man: freedom of expression.
Impunity still prevails and the hope that one day we will have a truly objective public broadcaster, free of political interference and party lackeys remains a distant pipedream.