In a controversial decision taken in March 1991, the Nationalist government announced its intention to offer three “temporary radio licences”, one to itself, one to the Malta Labour Party, and the third to the Church. The resulting radio stations, Radio 101, Super One Radio and RTK, were therefore given one year’s headstart to establish a market presence ahead of competition. In fact, a year after the three temporary licences were granted, numerous private entities also applied for radio licences, including Island Sound, Radio One Live, Bay Radio and others.
Question
If the intention was to reduce unfair manipulation of the airwaves, why were the original radio licenses offered only to the two main political parties and to the Church... instead of to everyone equally?
***
Facts
The introduction of pluralism in broadcasting was governed by the Broadcasting Act, passed through Parliament in 1990 (with subsequent amendments in 1994 and 2000).
Section 13 (2) of the Broadcasting Act specifies that:
“It shall be the duty of the (Broadcasting) Authority to satisfy itself that, as far as possible, the programmes broadcast by persons providing sound or television broadcasting services in Malta comply with the following requirements, that is to say
(a) that nothing is included in the programmes which offends against religious sentiment, good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling;
(b) that all news given in the programmes (in whatever form) is presented with due accuracy;
(c) that sufficient time is given to news and current affairs and that all news given in the programmes (in whatever form) is presented with due impartiality;
(d) that proper proportions of the recorded and other matter included in the programmes are in the Maltese language and reflect Maltese cultural identity;
(e) that the programmes broadcast contain a substantial proportion of matter closely designed to appeal to the interest, tastes and outlook of the general public; and
(f) that due impartiality is preserved in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy:
Provided that, except in the case of public broadcasting services (our emphasis), in applying paragraphs (c) to (f), the Authority shall be able to consider the general output of programmes provided by the various broadcasting licensees and contractors, together as a whole.”
A similar proviso is to be found in the Broadcasting Authority guidelines for both news and current affairs programmes (www.ba-malta.org)
Questions
Was the above proviso designed to exempt the party-owned stations from presenting news with “due impartiality”... so long as, “together as a whole”, their impartilaities balance each other out? And, considering that PBS is subject to all the above subsections, while the party-owned stations are not... doesn’t this place the national station in a disadvantaged position vis-a-vis its direct competitors?
***
Facts
In a press conference at City Gate on 22 May, Malta’s third party Alternattiva Demokratika stated its intention of complaining to the European Union about the state of Maltese broadcasting, which it claimed constituted a breach of democratic principle.
AD chairman Harry Vassallo said: “Malta is the only European country where political parties are direct owners of private television stations. The party in government has a clear conflict of interest by being the owner of both national and party stations.”
He also added that the situation was aggravated by the fact that the Broadcasting Authority's board was solely nominated by the Government and Opposition.
Meanwhile, however, when the Broadcasting Authority recently issued a call for expressions of interest in a television licence, Alternattiva Demokratika was among the applicants to come forward.
Question
Does AD see no contradiction in opposing the fact that two political parties own and operate their own TV stations, while at the same time applying for a licence to do the same thing itself?