Minister regrets hunters’ ‘right of reply’

Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia, who is also responsible for broadcasting, has acknowledged that a decision to interrupt animal rights awareness programme Animal Diaries to air a 25-minute pro-hunting ‘documentary’ as a right-of-reply.

“I shall look into this so that this will not be repeated,” Mallia wrote in a brief reply to a complaint by environmentalist, educator and animal rights campaigner Annalise Falzon, of Nature Trust.

But replying to the same complaint, the Public Broadcasting Services replied that the mistake was that Birdlife representatives had been interviewed on Animal Diaries, ostensibly requiring someone from the hunting lobby to balance out the content on the programme.

In her complaint to the minister and PBS, Falzon expressed her dismay and disappointment at PBS for cutting short an educational programme with a 25-minute feature on hunting from a digital terrestrial station, as a form of redress for the hunters’ federation FKNK.

“I was shocked to see how the programme was cut short by at least 25minutes to be replaced by a terrible ‘documentary’ showing quail being shot and song thrush caught in nets,” Falzon said.

In her complaint, Falzon expressed concern that PBS had to do this in response to threats over the previous programme’s content, which included comments by Birdlife as well as an interview with BBC television presenter and naturalist Chris Packham.

“If this is the case this is really worrying indeed. This unfortunately also reminds me of the past when I was not allowed to speak about dolphins in captivity on a live TV programme as it would have conflicted with the sponsor of the programme.”

PBS claimed its decision was informed by the need to balance out opposing views. PBS CEO Anton Attard replied to the complaint insisting that PBS was bound by the Broadcasting Act. “In matters of a controversial nature, we are bound by legislation to give equal time to all views on the subject matter.”

Attard also insisted that “the mistake was done on day one when the programme treated a controversial subject without giving space to opposing views.” 

Falzon wrote back to Attard expressing her disagreement. “I cannot agree that there was any mistake in an animal awareness programme showing the reality of the local situation, especially considering the hunting organisation FKNK had been invited to air its views.”

Falzon insisted that viewers of the programme had  to stomach “the glorified murder of birds and rabbits” instead of the usual animal awareness programme which it replaced. “I, for one, was utterly disturbed at having to see such footage on TV after having to witness a whole spring season of shooting as well as illegal trapping.”