As if a long series of questionable decisions was not enough, this week gave even more proof that the Broadcasting Authority is nothing short of a sham and has zero credibility when it comes to ensuring anything remotely close to the principles of media freedom.

In its latest decision, the Broadcasting Authority imposed a fine of €4,660 after it found RTK103 guilty of failing to respect impartiality by not inviting Norman Lowell's Imperium Europa on its discussion programme 'Andrew Azzopardi on RTK103' during the electoral campaign.

It's not the first time that the BA has sprung to defence of Norman Lowell - a man who is court-certified as a racist: Another fine of €6,410 imposed by the Broadcasting Authority last January after Azzopardi said on-air that he wouldn't allow Norman Lowell to express his extremist, racist and far-right views on his programme. 

That decision in itself was illogical and misguided: at the time, Lowell certainly wasn't an MEP candidate because nominations for the election only opened six months after Azzopardi's assertion on his programme.

So invariably the BA believes that even in normal times it has the authority to force a private media station to bring on guests that it does not want to bring on.  So much for editorial freedom, then.

The BA's actions are all done under the guise of striking a political balance - and yet the BA itself has time and time again proven that it doesn't care much for political balance in the first place.  We'll go a step further and say that they're in fact completely inconsistent when it comes to their very idea of political balance.

See, for yet another electoral campaign, third parties and independent candidates were given short shrift when it comes to electoral debates.

While the PL and PN were given five debates between them, the smaller political parties ADPD, Imperium Europa, Volt, and ABBA were given a debate slot each with the PN and PL.  Independent candidates like Arnold Cassola and Conrad Borg Manche were not included at all in the political party debates.

The BA's idea of 'political balance' in the run-up to an election is clearly a "balance" - if you can even call it that - which tilts heavily in favour of the two major political parties.  It is yet another institution set out to protect the hegemony that both major parties have on this country's politics.

But wait, there's more.

Independent candidate Arnold Cassola was even banned by the BA from appearing in an interview on the private television station Smash TV.  Even this fact alone is incredible: on one hand, the BA is fining a radio station for not giving someone airtime; on the other hand the very same BA banned a television station from giving someone else airtime.  Make it make sense!  This is logic so convoluted and contradictory.

It should be noted that the BA has never appeared to have any problem with other private television stations - namely NET TV and ONE TV - only airing the views and candidates of their own political overlords. God forbid that they're handed a fine.  Considering their respective financial situations, it's highly unlikely they'll even afford to pay them.

It begs the question: why are some private television stations held to one standard, and others - coincidentally owned by the two major political parties - held to another? Perhaps one shouldn't necessarily be surprised: the BA is comprised of nominees from the PN and PL with a chairperson handpicked by the Prime Minister.  They have a vested interest in preserving the status quo and stopping any challenge against them.

Malta's broadcasting sector needs a total, top-down reform - and that starts from removing political involvement from the Broadcasting Authority, and quite frankly removing the people who have time and time again proved that the actual principles of a free press are the least of the things on their mind.