Mr. Privitera, you really don’t get it, do you?

Why shouldn’t a television host have the liberty to choose the persons he wants to have on his programmes/shows?

Do you understand the gravity of your statements? Why, pray, should Bondi’ not invite anybody HE likes on a show he is investing his life in. Because he is a Nationalist? So what.

Can’t Nazzjonalisti discuss matters with Labour invitees of their choice?

Your logic scares me. You remind me of those ghastly and terrifying 80s. Your comments smack of the mentality that has ruined the lives of so many just a few short years ago.

Remember the messages of national unity on the 31st of March?

‘Il-haddiema tat-Telemalta, tal-Enemalta u l-membri tal-metal workers section tal-GWU jawguraw il-paci u l-progress lil poplu Malti u Ghawdxi kollu..”

As Joseph said, we will be ‘one thing’

That’s interesting, insisting who should appear on behalf of the PN.

I bet they’ll insist who’s to be considered worthy of the middle class next.

You ask: “What did you expect the writer of that editorial to write?”

You mean that the editor of a newspaper whose printing presses were burnt to the ground by an MLP mob would be expected to be very careful what he writes?

Does this mean that the recent last minute refusal to send two Labour Party spokesmen to a NET TV programme was related to the fact that the station was ‘selective’ in requesting the presence of the two individuals?

If I remember correctly the host said that he had sent a last minute e-mail to the Party (not the individuals) to which it responded by saying that it had decided to stop the two because the host had changed one of the two on the PN’s side! So now the LP wants to dictate who the NP sends on a TV programme on its own station? Democracy, Labour Party style?

Eddy, you never made much sense, but this time you’ve exceeded expectations.

The Maltese view of ‘balance’ is allowing the political parties to have their own TV and radio stations.

If the BA have endorsed this madness, then why are you surprised they carry on with their loony behaviour?

I am only glad they don’t discuss politics in English.

Does the concept of inviting an individual to a discussion mean anything to you? I suppose not. Being a rabid Laborist, concepts such as individuality and freedom of expression and the press are about as alien to you as the Chinese alphabet.

Eddy Privitera is obviously talking from experience and fears that the government that gave freedom of the airwaves will do what the Labour Party did during the dark ages of Malta when the national and only TV stations that exited were declared to be the tools to indoctrinate and turn every Maltese into a socialist zombie.

Who can forget the national TV station opening with the greeting ‘bonġu Malta socjalista’ following the election result or the cartoon ‘Run Rabbit Run’? Sur Privitera, if you think that the Maltese suffer from dementia I am sorry to disappoint you but you are wrong.

PBS works within tighter constraints than other TV stations as it must ensure there is a balance in programmes debating political (and other issues). This is the background to it all.

Through its decision, the Broadcasting Authority has reduced PBS to a mouthpiece of political parties, in that it is political parties who can decide who appears on PBS programmes. The main issue here is not press freedom but that the Broadcasting Authority has put the interests of political parties before everything else, including PBS viewers.

If I was TV presenter on PBS, I would want to choose who attends my programmes not because it is “freedom of the press” but because I need to get audiences – and audiences bring in sponsorship. It is not political parties who pay for the advertising revenue on PBS but advertising companies. As a TV presenter I would want to invite the most colourful, intelligent and, why not, controversial guests on my programme because that brings in audiences which in turn brings revenue. Intelligent, colourful and controversial guests also ensure quality TV programmes.

In its decision, the BA has ignored all of this, seeking to focus on the interests of political parties rather than the viewers. One can understand why this has happened. The BA on its own website describes itself as ” an independent statutory body consisting of a Chairman and four other members appointed by the President of Malta acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister given after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition,” This means that the board members were approved and appointed by the very same parties who go to complain to them on inbalances.

But the issue here is not imbalance but the quality of the services provided by PBS in what is a competitive market. The BA has simply added another constraint to PBS.

Assuming I am getting this right, as the situation now stands, if Lou Bondi wanted to invite Franco Debono on his progamme, does the PN have a veto? Does that mean that it can insist on sending, say, Franco Debono’s nemesis Austin Gatt in his stead?

If I am correct on this, PBS has just been severely neutered.

Lou Bondi has been recorded taking part in GonziPN victory celebrations . How can the BA allow him and other GonziPN acolytes running PBS turn the national broadcaster as GonziPN’s own station !