In court yesterday, I was thrilled to spend two hours of my life in a courtroom with journalists, editors, politicians and column writers. Austin Gatt was there, his usual bubbly self, assertive and happy to be the centre of attraction. The former Independent editor Noel Grima was giggling as usual, typical of someone with such an agreeable personality.
On a side bench Joe Saliba – the former PN secretary general who left Paul Borg Olivier with an amazing debt – was seated surrounded by his posse of colleagues as the PN’s official lawyer Joe Zammit Maempel debated a legal point.
Finally, the case against this newspaper kicked off.
It was Natalino Fenech, Head of News at PBS, against the two newspaper editors of this publishing house.
An intensely vexatious person by nature, the PBS editor is arguing that his right of reply was published late or not at all.
To be precise, Natalino Fenech – who is not very much appreciated by the Labour Opposition and those who wish to see a State TV that does not serve one party against another – was assisted by two lawyers.
Magistrate Silvio Meli attempted to reconcile both sides, but as Natalino Fenech’s lawyer discovered, his client did not want a compromise. And why should he?
The facts read as follows.
Last year, PBS organised a discussion programme on Dissett, after a series of controversial articles in MaltaToday about fishing and farming of big fish.
And wonder of wonders, PBS left MaltaToday out of the panel even though they continuously referred to articles in MaltaToday without mentioning MaltaToday by name.
The journalist of MaltaToday Midweek rightly wrote in to PBS to point out the fact that the views of our journalists was not sought; and to make matters worse, the only two people present on the panel were consultants to the same fishing industry.
By the way, the same lawyers, who represent the interests of those who catch these big fish, also represent PBS.
Let me declare that I have nothing against eating big fish or big fish hunting or big fish netting.
But then, the same lawyers this time representing PBS, wrote in to say that there was no justifiable reason to have MaltaToday represented.
And this at the same time, that big time legal action was being taken by the same lawyers in the name of three big fish owners against these newspapers.
Once again, I have nothing to say against the big fish owners, the big fish eaters and the fish themselves. And I mean it.
But that was not enough, so Natalino Fenech, the man who believes that the sun rises over G’Mangia when he walks into the PBS newsroom, wrote to the Midweek MaltaToday newspaper. His letter was published in full even though half it was irrelevant and a whole lot of hogwash.
But he also imagined that it should also be published in MaltaToday Sunday edition. He should know that each publication has its own editor and editorial team.
He did not stop there. On December 22 he dedicated four wholesome minutes of the 8pm news to read out this letter. A reply which declared in so many words that yours truly has no credibility because he had apologised to Albert Mizzi that very year.
His letter was as follows: “Mr Balzan is correct in saying we made it a point not to ask MaltaToday for its comments about the tuna issue. The reason why we did this is a very simple one that can be found in Mr Balzan’s own admission in the apology he made to Albert Mizzi on 29 June this year.
“In that apology, Mr Balzan admitted to orchestrating a campaign by writing over 40 articles with reference to Mr Mizzi, four of which were libellous, “subjecting Mr Mizzi to a sustained and unwarranted personal attack, which was entirely unjustified and unfair.
“Mr Balzan proudly proclaims that the paper for which he is responsible is facing 10 libel cases after publishing 52 articles about the tuna industry. Seeing Mr Balzan’s admission about his campaign against Mr Mizzi, one does not have to be a genius to understand why the national television station chose to seek the opinion of experts, rather than the opinion of MaltaToday.”
I remember that on the 22 December being informed about the PBS transmission. I remember phoning Claire Vassallo Thake, Chairman of PBS. I have come to realise that Claire means well but is as ineffective as my ageing appendix. She has no control over what happens in PBS and is simply overshadowed by the decisions of Natalino and Joe Pirotta: Two people who have the full confidence of the government in power.
Of course, what Albert Mizzi has to do with my credibility is another thing. But one thing is important. When I declared what I declared with Mr Mizzi, I should perhaps say that I was passing through a bad patch because of a personal loss. Not that Natalino Fenech cares or would care. But at the time I could not give a hoot about what anyone thought about a clarification. At the time I was hardly at the newsroom.
Weakness is an undesirable quality that hits you when you least expect it.
What I have to say about Albert Mizzi I will continue to say. With the redundant libel laws we face, fair reportage and tackling big business and other commercial interests is a very serious big problem for the free press.
Natalino Fenech will not take on stories that MaltaToday will tackle, and thanks to this media house we have been able to tackle people like Albert Mizzi and raise the issue of his rental properties: such as his rented house in St Julian’s and his offices in Valletta, the dreadful development at Tigne point, and recently the issue of Mellieha Bay hotel. Albert Mizzi pays the government €349.41 (equivalent to Lm150 a year) for the land presently occupied by the Mellieha Bay Hotel and a much larger area of a total of 165,246 square metres, which is now earmarked for villa development.
Mellieha Bay Hotel, which is partly owned by Mizzi Associated Enterprises Ltd, has presented an application to develop 98 villas on the pristine area surrounding Mellieha Bay hotel.
In court, Natalino Fenech – who earns just under €50,000 as head of news – argued that I had launched a systematic attack on him and PBS. He talked as if he owned PBS, indeed when he used four minutes of airtime to broadcast his right of reply to the nation, he was clearly making the national station his own.
Natalino Fenech should expect to be grilled... unless he comes from another world, where everything is black or white, where everything is red or blue and everyone expresses says how good he is.
He probably thinks that he is above reproach and that his news editorial is doing justice to ‘independent and fair broadcasting.’
He is not.
And until the day he is asked or resigns from PBS. I will be there to monitor his actions in the manner that has made this publishing house acquire such respect and credibility.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
