One TV, NET TV, Smash TV and TVM have been found guilty by the Broadcasting Authority of carrying political advertising relating to public policy. One, NET and Smash, which had been found guilty of the offence for the first time, were warned not to repeat the offence. TVM, which had been found guilty of similar charges in the past, was fined e1,164, with the fine suspended for a year.
The advertising all related to the government’s policy on information technology and had been commissioned by the Information Technology Ministry. It was found in breach of article 13(4), paragraph 1(f) of the Broadcasting Act which lays down that advertising and teleshopping should not, except as authorised by the authority, be political.
The authority said it had always applied a wide interpretation of what constituted political advertising, and it had always maintained that advertising whose main aim was to promote the policy of the government of the day, should be considered political. The stations knew this.
This provision of the law did not exist solely in Malta, most regulatory authorities in western European countries followed the same thinking, the authority said. Disputes which usually arose in this area related to what was known as issue advertising by non-government and other pressure groups, and on this there was today a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, to which many European countries were regulating themselves.
The Broadcasting Authority said that especially in these last months, when public sector advertising on the broadcasting means had been considerable, it had sought to interpret the law reasonably and liberally, as evidenced by advertising on, for instance, Malta’s membership of Schengen, the adoption of the euro, information on budget measures, and Mater Dei Hospital facilities.
In the case of the charges made on political advertising, the authority said, it had decided that the advertising was primarily promotional, seeking to promote the administration’s achievements about the development of information technology, and the strategy being followed for further development.
The authority had decided against finding the advertising to be in breach of balance and impartiality, but even if the strategy had been decided on after wide consultation, even with the political parties, and no party had objected to the advertising, the authority said it could not shirk its obligations under the law.
As a result the authority found that the charges by its executive head had been proven because the advertising had been of a political nature.