A number of recent editions of your newspaper as well as the last issue of its sister newspaper, TMIS , referred to various statements that are reported to have been made by Gejtu Vella, secretary general of the Union Haddiema Maghqudin, on the functions and the performance of the Broadcasting Authority.

In a report (TMID, 8 March) on Mr Vella’s address at the recent UHM annual general conference, the secretary general is reported to have stated that the Broadcasting Authority and PBS “avoid reporting important issues”. He is then reported (TMIS, 11 March) to have stated, inter alia, that “while the Broadcasting Authority ensures that if the leader of the opposition is screened for 30 seconds, the Prime Minister is screened for 30 seconds – and the balance is maintained – in the process it fails miserably in reporting the real issues.”

Finally, to cap it all, in an interview (TMID, 12 March) and in the context of a preceding comment to the effect that the public needs to ensure that it is receiving value for money, the UHM secretary general states that “what we have are institutions such as the Office of the Auditor or the Broadcasting Authority which have today relaxed their muscle”.

Regrettably, these statements, at least insofar as they refer to the Broadcasting Authority, are either misguided and ill-advised or downright incorrect and, therefore, the following clarifications are called for:

• The Broadcasting Authority is not mandated to perform the functions of a broadcaster and cannot therefore be accused of avoiding or of failing to report issues, however important or real. The role of the authority in fact is to regulate broadcasting content in line with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution of Malta and the Broadcasting Act;

• The Constitution of Malta imposes on the Broadcasting Authority the obligation to ensure that “so far as possible, in such sound and television broadcasting services as may be provided in Malta, due impartiality is preserved in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy.” Mr Vella, however, appears to expect the authority to go beyond its Constitutional mandate and to challenge, whenever it deems it to be necessary, the editorial discretion of a broadcaster as to what constitutes news value, even when the omission of a news item does not impinge on the above-mentioned Constitutional requirements. Such an approach would indeed justifiably open the authority to criticism of undermining editorial independence and, by implication, of restricting freedom of expression. The authority would be unwilling to adopt this approach;

• Article 34 of the Broadcasting Act provides the right to an aggrieved party, including of course the UHM, to submit a complaint to the Broadcasting Authority on unfair and unjust treatment in a broadcasting programme, including news bulletins and current-affairs programmes. I want to assure the secretary general of the UHM that, should the union submit any complaint in terms of these provisions, this will be dealt with in the most meticulous and objective manner;

• Finally, Mr Vella’s comment that the Broadcasting Authority has “today relaxed its muscle” is grossly unfair and is not borne out by actual facts.

Over the past few months, the authority has converted a set of guidelines on the production of news bulletins and current-affairs programmes (issued several years ago for the purpose of self-regulation) into legally-enforceable standards and practice carrying substantial penalties.

It has directed a commercial station to desist from continuing to broadcast a programme which was deemed to be manifestly politically partisan, it has taken punitive action in relation to a number of programmes which were deemed to be promoting personal political interests and it has not failed to take action against a politically-owned station when it was deemed that facts had not been presented with due accuracy in a news bulletin, this of course apart from the ongoing action taken by the authority against stations/programmes which are deemed to have breached any of the substantial amount of other broadcasting legislation currently in force.

Mr Vella, of course, may be perfectly entitled to expect better coverage of important UHM activities, including the outcome of the valid reports commissioned by the union and considered at the last annual general meeting, but a remedy to any such shortcomings does not necessarily lie within the ambit of the Broadcasting Authority.

J. Scicluna

Chairman

Broadcasting Authority