Stop Funding Hate’s Malta Argument Raises an Awkward Question: What About NET TV?

Stop Funding Hate’s comments about Malta raise a question that the Nationalist Party and those campaigning in Daphne Caruana Galizia’s name should answer: if political parties owning television stations is so objectionable, why does the PN continue to own NET TV?

Sharing the Guardian’s report about politicians presenting television programmes, Stop Funding Hate singled out Malta. It then referred to political parties owning television channels and invoked Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination as evidence of the country’s toxic environment for journalism.

Yet this argument has an inconvenient detail. Malta’s system of party-owned broadcasting includes NET TV, the Nationalist Party’s station, alongside Labour’s ONE. The criticism therefore falls directly on the PN too. (media-ownership.eu⁠)

Personally, I see nothing inherently wrong with political parties owning television stations. Their ownership is public, their political allegiance is evident, and viewers can assess their coverage accordingly. Broadcasters should answer for what they broadcast. Party ownership alone does not establish wrongdoing.

My objection concerns the political inconsistency of those who take the opposite position while supporting a party that operates its own station.

In my view, activism around Daphne Caruana Galizia’s cause often overlaps politically with support for the PN. That is why the argument advanced by Stop Funding Hate is embarrassing for the Nationalist Party and for campaigners who support it. They cannot reasonably condemn party ownership as a symptom of Malta’s democratic failings without confronting the implications for NET.

The PN publicly presents itself as a champion of journalists’ protection and of reforms arising from the inquiry into Daphne’s assassination. Its own statements emphasise that commitment. But where does its television station fit into the argument now being circulated in her name? (pn.org.mt⁠)

Will the PN close NET TV? Will it relinquish ownership? Or will it defend party-owned broadcasting and explain why it disagrees with those who portray the practice as unacceptable?

The same question should be put directly to PN supporters active in organisations campaigning in Daphne’s name. If they believe political ownership undermines independent journalism, will they organise protests in front of the PN headquarters and demand that their preferred party lead by example? Will they insist on a concrete commitment and a timetable?

Criticising Malta’s media system is easy. Applying that criticism to a party one supports is the real test.

The Daphne Foundation has criticised party-owned media and identified the ownership of both parties’ stations. But the same organisation never moved from sweet talk to action. (daphne.foundation⁠, daphne.foundation⁠)

Stop Funding Hate’s presentation also deserves scrutiny. Its posts place political ownership of television, corruption and Daphne’s murder together. That association strongly implies a causal link, but it does not establish that owning a party station is itself responsible for corruption or violence. Those connections must be demonstrated.

And if party ownership is being presented as part of the problem, NET belongs in that argument explicitly. Invoking Daphne’s name does not remove the need to apply the same standard to the PN.

I am defending both parties’ right to own television stations. Those who disagree should have the courage to apply their objection to both.

For me, the hypocrisy lies here: condemning a political arrangement while supporting a party that continues to benefit from it, without insisting that the party surrender that advantage or organising public demonstrations against their party owning a TV station.

The question remains straightforward. Will PN supporters who campaign in Daphne’s name demand, in concrete terms, that the Nationalist Party give up NET TV? Or does their objection to party-owned broadcasting stop when it reaches their own political doorstep?

The UK has been confirmed as an outlier in Europe for allowing Nigel Farageand other serving politicians to present TV shows covering current affairs, according to an unprecedented analysis of broadcasting rules.

Farage is one of a series of Reform UK figures who are permitted to present shows on the rightwing network GB News. The Reform MP Lee Anderson and former candidate Matt Goodwin also have regular slots on the channel.

Their status as presenters has led to repeated concerns about the enforcement of Britain’s rules on impartial broadcasting.

Last month, Farage used his first GB News show for six months to defend his party’s decision to accept two record £36m donations from the crypto billionaires Christopher Harborne and Ben Delo.

However, an international study has confirmed that the UK’s decision to allow politicians to present such shows is highly unusual across Europe. In 35 of the 37 European nations studied, regulators found no recent examples of serving politicians presenting news or current affairs programmes. Only Iceland, which has a population of about 400,000 people, and Malta bucked the trend.

In Malta, political parties are even permitted to own television channels. There have been instances where MPs have presented interview programmes, although according to its regulator these are not the norm.

Eight countries – including France, Georgia and Norway – expressly ban politicians from presenting news or current affairs programmes, either through broadcasting legislation or other restrictions.

The practice is constrained indirectly in 26 countries via rules covering impartiality, transparency or independence from government.

Three countries – Armenia, Finland and Malta – had no specific legislation or regulation covering the issue. However, regulators in Armenia and Finland reported no examples of it occurring.

The study, by an academic from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism for the Demos thinktank, will be used as evidence by critics who believe that Ofcom, Britain’s media regulator, has failed to protect impartiality by allowing the politician-led shows.

Ofcom has said that such shows are within broadcasting rules because they are classed as “current affairs” shows by the watchdog, rather than news programmes – a distinction that has been challenged by critics, given the politicians regularly discuss some of the biggest news stories of the day.

The Reuters analysis, by the research associate Dr James Painter, found the issue had only caused a serious debate in the UK. “This demonstrates the