Shining a light on government censorship
In a free society, government censorship of media houses on what they should publish is always a grave concern to those who believe in the fundamental right of free speech. The government’s ability to censor what the public hears, even if done by proxy through the Broadcasting Authority (BA), is an abuse of power.
The BA’s directive to media houses to use “caution” when reporting on the European Parliament (EP) activities, especially those which feature the activities of the EP president, Roberta Metsola, is misguided, inequitable and a serious threat to political democracy.
Metsola’s participation in the EP event commemorating Malta’s 20th anniversary since joining the European Union was, undoubtedly, a moment of pride for all Maltese.
It was certainly a historic activity of national importance.
Still, the government-controlled Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) did not report this event, claiming it was following the BA directive.
The Nationalist Party is correct in arguing that PBS and the BA must understand that they have to promote liberty of expression and fair access to information to the public without creating obstacles.
The BA comprises political appointees from both parties, even if the members are expected to act independently from the parties they represent. Sadly, they often fail to be fair and promote a level playing field to public protagonists in the country’s polarised political scene.
The government can pull various strings in organisations and agencies it controls directly or indirectly. It often pulls these strings to take partisan advantage over the opposition.
One of these strings leads to censorship by proxy – working through intermediaries to suppress free speech or the public’s right to get newsworthy information transparently from media sources.
In the run-up to the EP elections in June, the government never misses an opportunity to influence public opinion in its favour through unrestricted reporting of events on the pretext that such events are official government business. In reality, most of these events have no news value and are just pegs to hang a rosy picture of the Labour Party (PL) in the eyes of the electorate.
We must maintain a robust marketplace of ideas of all political parties participating in the democratic process. Some candidates contesting the EP elections for the PL have been given strong platforms to project themselves prominently to the public. Some spend taxpayers’ money to curry favour with the electorate through their political appointments in government agencies. Others are given more than their fair share of airtime on the public broadcasting media. So, opposition candidates rightly complain that there is no “level playing field” among candidates.
The BA must engage in a soulsearching exercise to determine why it is failing to carry out its mission to promote equity in our political democracy. The notion that the ‘winner takes all’ in a bipartisan political system is outdated and dangerous for the well-being of our society. Democracy thrives on the contrast of ideas, and, for this contrast to produce the best effects, all participants should be given equal rights to be heard.
The government must no longer use its power of incumbency to influence public opinion to the detriment of the opposition. Arguing that this is the way things have always been done is fallacious. It shows a lack of genuine commitment to the true values of a democratic political system.
It is, therefore, time to shine a light on the iniquity of government censorship of free speech.