The Broadcasting Authority has a lot of explaining to do. Earlier this week it emerged that the authority had issued a directive to the national broadcaster, PBS, instructing it not to broadcast any questions from journalists during a government Covid-19 press conference.

The reason behind the directive, it said, was to ensure ‘impartiality’ on public broadcasting.

People were surprised on Monday when PBS stopped its broadcast as soon as Deputy Prime Minister Chris Fearne and Health Superintendent Charmaine Gauci stopped speaking at a press conference during which another round of restrictive measures was announced.

Journalists from all media houses were present but television viewers were not allowed to hear their questions and, of course, Fearne and Gauci’s replies.

The BA defended its decision by saying that, in past cases, some journalists had asked questions that had nothing to do with the subject at hand which had forced the Prime Minister to answer in a partisan way, leading to a political imbalance. It seems that the complaint was filed by the Nationalist Party.

But the truth of the matter is that, by trying to take action to keep this so-called political balance, the authority has censored not only PBS but all journalists who were present for the event, and most of whom had prepared questions that were related to the subject.

These included, of course, our own journalist, who had prepared a number of questions that would have only served to clarify things for the public following the press conference on their TV or computer screens.

The Broadcasting Authority’s decision was a draconian one employed only in totalitarian states. You do not censor the entire media to avoid a situation where a One or Net TV journalist asks a politically loaded question.

If anything, both newsrooms were present, so they would have effectively balanced each other out. But beyond this argument, one cannot also censor the independent media, even if it had questions that were not strictly related to the subject of the press conference.

As an example, most media houses, this one included, asked Chris Fearne why the Prime Minister was on holiday in Sicily when the country is heading into a new alarming situation – one that merited the introduction of a slew of restrictive measures.

The public has a right to know why the Prime Minister chose, once again, to be absent for the announcement of more bad news.

If the Broadcasting Authority truly wants national broadcasting to be impartial and balanced, it should see why PBS news often chooses not to report on government scandals or why it does not give equal coverage to the Opposition.

Over the past seven years, the Opposition has often sought redress about this. The situation was not much better under PN administrations, and the BA has never done much to address the situation.

Now, instead of doing something about it, it has issued a draconian directive that has only served to bring press freedom in Malta further down into the pits. It is no wonder that we are doing so badly in the press freedom index.

We now expect the BA to withdraw this bizarre directive and ensure that decisions like this one are never taken again.