1. Political budget ads

The PN’s complaint which was accepted by the authority related to ads for Budget 2022 which were deemed to have been political in nature by the PN. According to the broadcasting regulations, political ads can only be aired during times specifically allocated to political programs. 

The PN also argued that the ads breached the Constitution’s impartiality requirements for broadcasting, insisting that they contained political and propaganda elements and were not informative. 

In its decision, the authority agreed that some of the ads were political in nature and for this reason, the Opposition should have been given the opportunity to have its side of the argument broadcast. 

It ordered PBS to allocate 15 minutes’ worth of ads of not more than 30 seconds each, in which the PN must directly respond to the ads flagged by the BA as having been political. 

2. Two-week notice before current affairs programmes 

The second complaint related to a new directive by the PBS in which it asked its producers to inform the editorial team about the identity of guests who will be appearing on current affairs programmes, as well as about the subject matter to be discussed. 

The directive elicited widespread criticism from journalists and broadcasters who pointed out that the very nature of current affairs programs meant it was unrealistic to require knowledge of guests and subjects to be discussed two weeks in advance. 

In its complaint, the PN said that through the directive, the government was trying to stifle free speech. It also said that the directives went against guidelines in place for current affairs programs, which required them to be current and relevant. 

The PBS rebutted the accusations through its lawyer Mark Vassallo, who argued that one cannot simply consider the directive in isolation. He stressed that the BA needed to consider whether or not the directive had had any effect and whether it had resulted in a breach of the law from a program content perspective. 

In this case, the BA noted that the directive was an internal one issued by PBS to give direction to its producers. It said that if it were to result in a breach of the law it would take the necessary action, but stressed that this had not yet happened. 

3. PL candidate invited on lifestyle programme 

Another complaint filed by the PN related to the choice of guests on the programme Niskata, which had invited an individual to speak about his profession despite being a Labour MP. 

The PN noted that while it was true that the programme was not of a political nature, the candidate had still been given air time, which would favour him in an election. 

The PBS argued that while it was true that the guest had declared himself to be a Labour candidate, he had been invited on the basis of his qualifications, to speak about the sector he worked in. 

The BA noted that it was true that the discussion had not included any element of current affairs or politics. Moreover, it pointed out that the programme had not aired during an election campaign. It did however urge PBS to pay more attention to the identity of guests invited on such programmes. 

4. Steward Health Care statement 

The final complaint decided today by the authority related to a statement issued by the Nationalist Party regarding Steward Health Care’s concession for the running of three of Malta’s hospitals. 

The PN complained to the BA that PBS had not covered a party statement in its evening news bulletin. The statement was one in a back and forth between the party and the company following a sitting in a court case filed by Nationalist MP Adrian Delia against the concession. 

The PN had issued a statement following the court sitting, which Steward Health Care had replied to with a statement of its own. Both statements were reported by PBS. 

The PN, however, issued a second statement that had been ignored by the PBS, despite containing eight points that had not been mentioned in its previous statement. 

While the PN said that the second statement could not be ignored simply because the first one had been reported, PBS argued that broadcasting regulations gave editors the discretion to decide whether an item was newsworthy or not. 

The BA said that after having reviewed the statements, it was of the opinion that the points raised in the second statement had already been covered by PBS during that period. It, therefore, rejected the complaint. 

What do you make of these decisions?