The Public Broadcasting Services has become simply a Labour Party propaganda weapon. Its agenda is not that of a national broadcaster that seeks to disseminate impartial information to the audience it supposedly serves, but rather it highlights anything that fits Labour's narrative whilst often seeking to censure the Nationalist Party's spokesmen and perspective.

One draws such conclusions from the fact that, in a span of two years of Labour Government, such instances have become more than occasional incidents.

 

The return of the "mhux fl-interess tal-poplu" syndrome

Last week, the PN was obliged to file two formal complaints about two occasions of a lack of impartiality on the same day. In the first instance, PBS chose not to broadcast a report of a PN press conference at which the Party called for a police investigation, following media claims that, in the last few months, public sector employees have carried out work on private property in Gozo. A PBS journalist and cameraman were sent on site to report the press conference, which they did, but PBS head of news, Reno Bugeja, decided that the conference was not of any news value and as such it was not in the public interest to know about the Opposition's insistence on the matter.

On that same evening during the television programme Dissett that was discussing the Gozo work-for-votes issue and was hosted by none other than the PBS Head of News, both political parties had their spokesmen in the studio. However, the sole "independent" commentator present was a former Labour Member of Parliament, giving the Labour Party an advantage with two de facto representatives in the debate.

Since the beginning of the year we have had quite a few similar cases. When it became common knowledge that the government would not meet the self-imposed deadline for the new power station, PBS came out to say that the government's energy plan was on track. When everybody was talking about the vindictive transfer of the head of Malta's public fostering service, PBS not only refrained from reporting the story but deliberately refrained from posing pertinent questions to the politically-appointed chairperson responsible, who was a guest on one of their 'investigative' programmes. In the heated debate over the Café Premier bailout, PBS ignored a PN press release challenging the veracity of an earlier government statement. And the list goes on...

Had the recent two occasions been isolated incidents, they could have been considered to be genuine errors, but the fact that there is a traceable regularity provides justification for labelling PBS as a mere government mouth-piece. It follows, unfortunately, that the Head of News who is permitting such travesties is losing all credibility. If the trend persists he can no longer pretend to be treated by one and all as a beacon of journalistic impartiality.

 

The emergence of a softer version of Labourite authoritarianism

The socialist broadcasting era of the 1980s' "one nation, one station" - famous for the Bonġu Malta Socjalista and Run Rabbit Run antics - is, thankfully, over. Back then, censure of the Opposition Leader's name was a shameless official policy of the national broadcaster. A change in government brought about the Broadcasting Act of 1991, which paved the way for pluralism in broadcasting. Zapping from one local station to another became the order of the day, more so with the advent of satellite and internet communications.

Fenech Adami's first term of office was one rapid process of liberalisation and democratisation, which brought an end to authoritarian leadership and centralised power. With its membership of the European Union and the ratification of various human rights protocols, Malta has become well integrated with the world of democratic nations. It is therefore difficult to imagine a reversal to the old authoritarian methods of the late 1970s and the early 1980s.

Nonetheless, it seems we are experiencing the emergence of a softer version of Labourite authoritarianism. The dispensing of public sector jobs to the Party faithful, and other favours to a selected clique of opinion-makers and business gurus, remains - and so does the indirect control of at least some of the important institutions, but its power is not based on old-style coercion any longer. It is rather based on the building of the leader's persona, charisma and credibility and the character assassination of any potential opposition.

The Public Broadcasting Services, with its manipulation of the truth, is fitting in neatly with Labour's strategy of propaganda and control.