Tags
Related Posts
Share This
In Lou's Defence ?
Where we argue that the broadcasting rules are not applied with the citizen in mind but rather with political parties. And we conclude that Lou should have a constitutional right to present a shoddy program.
So the Broadcasting Authority has fined Public Broadcasting Services €1,400 because Where’s Everybody’s program Bondiplus broke the BA’s rules on political impartiality in its March 8th edition. Those who have previously read J’accuse’s “The Day Journalism Died” and “Lou (Can’t) Read” might make the mistake of believing that our position has been somehow vindicated. Alas we only see a useless battle being fought by the BA when it charges the publicly funded PBS for Bondi+’s violation of the Maltese equivalent of par condicio rules.
What happened? Bondi chose the highly investigative topic of “2 Years of Government” for his March 8th edition. The editorial line of Bondi+ was one of going over the highlights and lowdowns of the first two years of this legislature in the company of Minister Tonio Fenech (only guest). This Maoist style of looking back at a governmental achievements on anniversaries is nowadays common in Western nations including the US and the UK – nothing strange in that. As far as J’accuse is concerned there is also nothing strange in the fact that Bondi’s editorial line includes selecting one Minister from the government and no other personality – be it a member of the opposition or a columnist/commentator. It’s WE’s show and they can choose to make it as boringly, arse-lickingly bland as a PLPN electoral spot.
What concerned the BA was the apparent bias towards government:
A substantial part of the programme consisted of features on projects, programmes and initiatives launched by the government. “In the opinion of the authority, these features were nothing other than promotion of government activity, with no effort having been made at critical analysis” the BA said.
You see the BA’s measure of justice and equity in the public media is a set of rules framed to guarantee balance for the main political parties. A PLPN balance. The BA is not really finding Lou guilty of shoddy journalism. That is J’accuse’s verdict on the Plategate program (among others). The BA is finding Lou guilty of lack of balance. The “critical analysis” shot by the BA does not mean, as it probably should, a lack of investigative journalism per se, but is a conclusion that is reached because of a lack of “critical” (as in “to criticise”) elements in the program. Had Lou Bondi opted to have, let’s say, Evarist Bartolo, for a cameo opposition appearance all would be good for the BA. Nothing would change on a journalistic level of course – the blood has been spilled and journalism is long dead.
Lou’s squeaky defence (he CAN read when the criticism involves a fine) includes the absurd “The Partit Laburista did not register a complaint against this edition of Bondi+”. This only goes to show that Lou “investigator” Bondi has his head stuck as far down in the sand (this is J’accuse so we prefer the sand metaphor) as the BA and the whole broadcasting farce of a structure that we have. The analysis of what is wrong with Lou’s programs has nothing professional about it. It is just another measure in the playground of mediocre partisan bigotry.
The rules governing Broadcasting are an insult to the citizen and his intelligence. An intelligent viewer does not need nanny BA to tell him that the March 8th program by Lou Bondi is politically biased. He does not even need to be protected from that bias – because like every single one of his presumed 160,000 viewers he should already know what to expect. Not only do the rules not protect the citizen but they will also fine him indirectly for their violation. Bondi breaks the sorry rules and the BA slaps a fine on PBS – PUBLIC Broadcasting Services. Who keeps the PBS up and running? PLPN? Surely not, they have their own failing ventures to see to – and probably would come up with some sort of agreement to square their fines just like they do for their libels.
Tha BA is a farce because its purpose is ill conceived. The Institute of Journalists (IMG) is close to being one big joke. This month expect more winners of the Journalism Awards – trophies given out to SELF-NOMINATED candidates with a jury composed of people who are not lifting one finger to improve the lot of a dead profession on the island.
Lou is gunning to go all the way to the Constitutional Court and win his constitutional right to present a shoddy program. We’re behind him on that one – so long as it’s not using our money.
As usual, you mistake the symptom for the disease.
There was a very minor news item about the Broadcasting Authority some weeks ago. It’s about their revising the “Code on the Correct Use of the Maltese Language on the Broadcasting Media Regulations” (the name itself brings in mind newspeak). Regulation 4(a) requires that each broadcasting station has a Maltese language consultant with a University degree on the subject or the recognition of the National Language Council AND — here comes in the thoughtpolice — the approval of the Broadcasting Authority.
Can you imagine? It’s like notwithstanding holding a degree in law and a warrant as a lawyer you can only offer legal advice to a broadcasting station on approval of the Broadcasting Authority. Your PLPN meme doesn’t even come close to explaining things.
Here’s another telling sign: Bondi’s defence, far from being “absurd” as you describe it, is stating the obvious. Obvious, that is, to everyone except the Broadcasting Authority. If Bondi’s programme with the Deputy PM as guest was not impartial someone was aggrieved and I can’t imagine how that could be the Authority. But the nanny Authority felt it had to take up the cause of those it thought to be the underdogs (Labour? the Nationalist backbench?) and proceeded with a fine.
That, by the way, is also something that should raise eyebrows. No opportunity for Bondi to make his case? And isn’t the remedy for lack of impartiality offering the right of reply? The whole thing sounds more like the Authority was looking out for some easy money.
Which, by the way, shouldn’t concern you unduly as fining the citizen for rules he didn’t break. Transferring money from PBS to the Authority is ultimately of as much consequence to the public purse as moving your wallet from your left to your right pocket.
Symptoms shymptoms Fausto.
1) The language question is the result of an aimless BA trying to justify its existence by dabbling in the arcanely surreal. That the PLPN (the main appointers of the BA) don’t bat an eyelid when this linguistic rubbish occurs provides enough confidence to the BA team to dabble where only the French dare to go. Yes, even this is part of the PLPN disease.
2) My problem with Lou’s defence is not it’s consistency/inconsistency but rather the framework within which it is presented. Lou’s defence accepts underlying “bias” argument as a given and does not challenge it head on. His argument – there is no bias because there is no complaint – is still accepting the underlying premise. It is absurd and squeaky because it plays along with the absurdity – probably because in the long run it pays Lou to have these rules and measures and not others …. otherwise he’d have had to pull his act together ages ago.
Ah j’accuse, master of analysis, argument and discourse, blogger par excellence and part-time political theorist! You see how this game works my friend…the various Lous and Joes and Daffers of this world ignore you and your intricate arguments but ENGAGE BIG TIME with the Taste Your Own Medicines…trash and destroy…lessons to be learnt, no? The plot thickens at any rate.
Speaking of part-time D – what does that make you right now?
:-) Me? Full time Slavic language student, bi-monthly opinion columnist, EU lawyer and policy officer in splendid abeyance.
I’m not quite sure I follow you on this one.
Just because the BA’s rules are a joke, and just because the deterrent (fining PBS) is ridiculous, it does not follow that Bondi was right.
PBS, for better or for worse, is the national broadcaster. Complete impartiality may be impossible to achieve, and at times the directives (one candidate from each party, equal time to speak etc) may indeed be risible. But that does not mean that we ought to simply grin and bear it – after all, PBS isn’t only using our pockets to pay Bondi’s fine. It also uses taxpayers’ money to pay Where’s Everybody, week after week.
The problem, of course, is that it is ridiculous to expect Lou Bondi to present an impartial news program. Bondi+ may be a decent current affairs program, but certainly not one fit for the national broadcaster.
Bondi’s defence is irrelevant. A breach of regulations remains one even if the injured party does not raise the issue.
are you not following me or fausto?
May I interject here?
For all the BA’s ability to come up with silly rules, nowhere is “impartiality” defined except to exempt party stations on the grounds that they “cancel each other out”. There’s no rule saying what’s “impartial” taking one station by itself.
In Bondi’s case the BA decided ad hoc on what’s not impartial and, without considering that the hypothetically injured party does not see itself as such or allowing defendant to defend himself or allowing the remedy of right of reply, slapped a fine.
So you are wrong to say that Bondi’s is a “breach of regulations” because there are no regulations.
probably because in the long run it pays Lou to have these rules and measures and not others …. otherwise he’d have had to pull his act together ages ago.
one hudred and eighty!
For Fausto’s perusal:
From the Broadcasting Act (cap 350)
Article 13(2)(f)
13(2)It shall be the duty of the Authority to satisfy itself that, so far as possible, the programmes broadcast by persons providing sound or television broadcasting services in Malta comply with the following requirements, that is to say –
(f) that due impartiality is preserved in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy:
41. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the offences listed in the First Column of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall be administrative offences punishable by the Authority.
(2) The imposition by the Authority of an administrative sanction in terms of this article shall be without prejudice to any other consequences of the act or omission of the offender under civil or administrative law.
(3) The Authority shall observe the guarantees of fair and public hearing in its determination as to whether a person is guilty of an administrative offence in terms of this article.
…
(6) The Authority’s decision shall be final; provided that compliance with the Authority’s decision shall not be interpreted as a renunciation to the right to seek judicial review.
Second Schedule to the Broadcasting Act
National Broadcasting Plan
19. The public broadcasting media have the particular responsibility of providing news and current affairs programming which respect the Constitutional requisites of adequate impartiality, and which shall also be in line with journalistic principles aimed at ensuring a comprehensive and accurate information service in the interests of a democratic and pluralistic society. They should be leaders in providing quality television to the Maltese public with regard to programming, news and analysis and should be able to interpret the guidelines issued by the Authority in respect of news and current affairs not as rigid straightjacketing but as a flexible tool in the hands of creative journalists.
From the REQUIREMENTS AS TO STANDARDS AND PRACTICE APPLICABLE TO NEWS BULLETINS AND CURRENT AFFAIRS PROGRAMMES (350.14)
12. Current Affairs
12.1 Broadcasters should aim to present current affairs programmes:
i. in a way which allows informed public debate on substantial issues affecting the community; ii. to provide reasonable opportunities to present significant viewpoints when dealing with controversial issues of public importance; iii. of immediate relevance to the community, including interviews and commentary dealing in depth with news items.
As such, a series of current affairs programmes should be balanced with a diversity of topics, including topics of a social, cultural, educational, environmental, economic, industrial and
political nature, as well as other subjects of general interest. Where the topics selected address issues of political or industrial controversy or of current public policy, the broadcaster is to ensure that, at least over a series of programmes, the selected topics adequately reflect the current debate affecting the whole political spectrum in the country.
12.2 The Broadcasting Act requirements about impartiality allow a series of programmes to be considered as a whole provided that when a single current affairs programme is not per se balanced, the legal requirement of impartiality may be discharged: (i) over two or more related programmes within the same series; (ii) where the broadcasts are transmitted within a reasonable period from each other; and (iii) when the broadcaster informs the viewers or listeners during the first programme of the date of the subsequent programme wherein he/she intends to balance the first programme giving sufficient information as to date of programme, subject of the programme and proposed participants. For this purpose, a “series” means a number of current affairs programmes, broadcast in the same service, each one of which is clearly linked to the others, and which deals with the same or related issues.
… and of course the Constitutional Provision (article 119 of the Constitution of Malta)
119. (1) It shall be the function of the Broadcasting Authority 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 r e l a t ing to current publ i c pol icy and that broadcasting facilities and time are fairly apportioned between persons belonging to different political parties.
Thanks. As you can see, it can, at most, be described as a “negative definition” that’s hardly exhaustive. It also does justice to Bondi’s defence that Joseph Muscat was the sole guest previously.
Incidentally, what is excluded as “not impartial” (i.e. balance achieved over a series of programmes) was completely ignored as remedy. It stands to reason that if anyone was aggrieved the remedy to the injured party should have been airtime. As it is Labour gained nothing from the fine being applied.
Meanwhile, please take note of the requirement that the Authority “observe the guarantees of fair and public hearing in its determination as to whether a person is guilty” and para. 12.4 of the “Standards and practice” you quote: