GET A REFUND AND STOP THE LABOUR SANDWICH

by a Blog Reader

For the first time ever, the Broadcasting Authority has forced a political party to report another party’s perspective. As a result, days ago, the ONE newscaster read out ADPD’s position that had previously been suppressed by the station. But then the newscaster added, in mockery of the Broadcasting Authority’s directive, that what the ADPD said is “irrelevant” due to “strong steps” taken by the Labour government against Steward Health Care. My suggestion to ADPD is to issue a second statement that rebuts what the announcer said. ADPD should demand that ONE should now read the second ADPD’s statement as well, that the government dismally failed to act strongly. 

A few weeks ago, the constitutional court ruled that the reporting of the news must be impartial. There is a difference between (i) granting your rivals a voice and, (ii) doing so in an impartial way. The word “impartial” means treating all political parties equally, fair, and just. ONE broadcasting media failed again to treat ADPD impartially.

The Broadcasting Authority must have acted under pressure from the court’s ruling. The same court held that when Nationalist ads were sandwiched between pro-government ads on PBS, they were indeed neutralised in a manifestation of impartiality. The servile and docile Nationalist Party, woefully short on Delias, should press further, firmly demanding a refund from PBS for the sandwiched ads. As for ADPD, it never paid for its rebuttal and can’t expect a refund. But the Nationalist Party did and has a right to a massive refund for its ads. 

Under the impartiality mandate from high above, the bankrupt Nationalist Party should close its newsroom and pass on its statements to PBS and ONE. Let PBS and ONE do the heavy lifting at their own expense. The impartiality ruling means that at the end of each news programme, one will be at a loss whether ONE is Labour or Nationalist since it will be impartial.

I am neither impartial nor do I fall under the constitutional ruling. Instead, I am trying to help the Nationalist Party slash its running costs and obtain millions in refunds for its PBS ads. Let the law work for the party. The cow is shriveled and begs for a glass of milk.

When ONE sandwiched the ADPD rebuttal between Labour’s position on the matter, capping and neutralising ADPD’s rebuttal with Labour’s own rebuttal as the final slice of the sandwich, it was an act of gross partiality. Also, if Labour granted five minutes to its position on Steward, granting less time to ADPD’s position was yet another act of unacceptable partiality. ADPD are not known for shyness and should hit ONE with a second rebuttal. Allow me to borrow the following advice ad litteram:

“In the realm of news and strife,

The Broadcasting Authority sought impartial life,

ONE begrudgingly voiced ADPD’s view,

But the sandwich opened an avenue to pursue.

ADPD should not back down,

But rather demand their rightful crown,

A second statement to counter the deride,

And force ONE to give their voice an equal ride.”