Prime Minister Robert Abela has said Malta was “at the forefront” in pushing forward this proposal.

While the EU resolution doesn’t specifically refer to politically-owned TV stations, the implications are quite clear. Any rules to prevent conflicts of interest related to political interference arising in media ownership structures can surely not allow political parties to own their own TV stations, far less collectively concentrate the market as they have done in Malta.

And if the European Commission does end up assessing “interference” in the media when analysing the state of the rule of law in member states, it’s unlikely to look fondly at ONE and NET.

In fact, a recent report by the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom, co-financed by the European Commission, assessed pluralism in Malta’s media as “high risk”, mainly because the largest media platforms are owned by political parties.

“These two political parties (PL and PN) are also key players in the media market, since they both own and manage multiple media platforms, covering TV, radio, print and online outlets,” the report reads. “Thus, they are actively contributing towards shaping the working environment for journalists and being a major influence on public discourse.”

If the European Commission does indeed link media pluralism to the disbursement of EU funds, the existence of NET and ONE could start to take on a different perspective.

How did Malta’s six MEPs explain their vote?

After the vote, Lovin Malta asked Malta’s six MEPs whether they consider ONE and NET to be political propaganda and how they think political interference in the Maltese media be avoided with the continued existence of party media.

Labour MEP Alfred Sant said it would be “obtuse” to argue that the continued existence of party media in a widening range of media outlets amounts to political interference.

“By the same gauge, the argument would also apply to the church and to the business interests involved in the media scene,” he said. “All media include an element of political communication. Party media have it plus what could be called political propaganda, which is equivalent to advertising for specific political messages. It is clear that EU funds should not be spent on political propaganda, nor for that matter on commercial propaganda.”

His colleague Alex Agius Saliba said he voted in favour of the Adamowicz Resolution because he “wholeheartedly” embraces the principles on the protection of journalists and is “totally committed” in the fight against disinformation and hate speech, especially with regards to the role played by online platforms.

However, he insisted the resolution was not intended to attack the very existence of political party TV stations and media houses.

“A strong democracy embracing media pluralism should also give space to political parties to own and distribute freely their agenda within our societies,” he argued. “I believe that commercial and political media houses should both compete and have the same level of access to funding opportunities, there is nothing wrong in that.”

“In a strong democracy, everyone, within the limits of our laws should have the ability and the possibility to air his views and this should also be applicable to political parties TV and radio stations in Malta.”

Nationalist MEP Roberta Metsola said she agreed that EU funds should be spent on supporting investigative journalism, with close monitoring to prevent it being used for propaganda.

“This is absolutely the correct approach and mechanisms need to be introduced to ensure that these funds are used for their intended purpose – investigative journalism – awarded to media houses with clear and transparent ownership lines,” she said.

Metsola said the debate on political party media is separate to this report but one which must be had as part of a wider discussion on media pluralism.

“It is true that the Maltese context is different to many others, in that there is a situation where balance is often lacking on national media that risks creating a vacuum for political parties to get their message across and a real risk of political parties getting drowned out of conversations they should be leading. In that context, it is not too surprising that there is still a market for these stations,” she said.

“Let me also say that NET TV employees in particular do some amazing work with limited resources and have broken some huge stories over the years, but when NET TV was launched no one thought 20 years later society would still rely on Party media or indeed that there would be a need for such.”

“Any debate going forward must be part of a holistic approach that includes state-funding for political parties and an end to donations, the option of full-time MPs, better oversight of national broadcasters, different funding models for public broadcasting and more. It must be something in which all stakeholders play a part in but that in particular both parties do together in tandem. Otherwise the status quo will remain.”

Her colleague David Casa said all political parties should have the right to use all means necessary to deliver their message, particularly since the state television and news have been “completely captured by the Labour Party”.

“My work over the past years has focused on many aspects that directly and indirectly affect members of the press – especially locally, following what was perhaps the worst crime in recent history on our shores 3 years ago. From working to introduce anti-SLAPP legislation across the EU, to ensuring journalist protection through my role in the media working group of the European Parliament as well as lobbying in favour of more funding for media houses, these are all aspects that are aimed at strengthening press freedom and ensuring that no interference – political or otherwise – hinders or suppresses this work.”

“These are the issues which are encompassed in MEP Magdalena Adamowicz’s resolution. While the current local administration continues to resist any changes in media freedom and continues to make no attempt to hide its contempt for investigative journalists, I  will continue to work on strengthening media freedom without prejudice or any reservations.”

Labour MEPs Josianne Cutajar and Cyrus Engerer didn’t respond to Lovin Malta’s questions.

Malta is the only EU country where political parties own their own TV stations, and together they own two-thirds of the major channels, with the other third owned by the public broadcaster TVM. 

NET and ONE are also receiving the lion’s share of the government’s COVID-19 state aid to media houses, with each of them receiving more money per month than all four Maltese independent newspaper houses combined.

The Labour and Nationalist parties also appoint all five members to the board of the Broadcasting Authority, which regulates TV stations and is supposed to ensure they observe their constitutional obligation of impartiality when presenting news and current affairs programs.

Party media have historically circumvented this obligation by arguing that the bias of ONE and NET cancel each other out, but the Broadcasting Authority’s CEO Joanna Spiteri said in her thesis that this argument doesn’t hold water.

Lovin Malta is set to launch a constitutional case against party-owned TV stations, on the grounds that political coverage by ONE and NET goes against the Constitution, the right to freedom of information, and the basic rules of fair competition.

Do you think there’s a future for political party stations in Malta? Let us know what you think in the comment section