The MBC Act demands fairness and balance, but the coverage of politics and news items by the Corporation is far from balanced, and does not cover the full spectrum of political events taking place in the country. Prioritisation of news is skewed, with newsworthy items often being dropped for pieces that portray government in a positive light. The time allocated to the PM is consistently disproportionate to the coverage of actual news events. During the 1999 riots in Mauritius, for example, the lead item on the news bulletin would be the official opening of a new building. It did not feature the riots as a major news story, but rather as a brief. There was no mention of what was happening on the streets, and footage of any of the events was noticeably missing. For this reason, people resorted to getting news on events in their country on international television channels. In their defence, the MBC claimed that they did not want to fuel an already aggravated situation. Another example of biased broadcast time allocation could be seen during the elections, when the Prime Minister always received double the amount of airtime that his counterpart is allocated. The PM was seen at different events engaging in intellectual discussions, while MBC would choose clips that portrayed his rival as inarticulate, clumsy and abusive. Panellists agreed that the MBC could easily choose to be professional in their work. They pointed out that coverage by the MBC on the floods that affected Mauritius several years ago was exceptional. This illustrated that the technical resources and the professional skill is available at the MBC. There is often a news blackout on incidents that portray government in a negative light. However, when a positive solution to that problem is found, this news will be aired. This often leaves viewers lacking context to media stories that they see/ hear. For example, coverage on the Attorney General’s resignation did not make it to the news agenda, but when he reconsidered his decision after negotiations with the government, the topic made headlines. Audiences had no idea that he had even contemplated resigning or the reasons for his decision. In addition to situations like those described above, the DG is able to refuse coverage at will. For example, the Minister of Labour once invited the MBC to cover a press conference dealing with the suspension of a staff member of the MBC. The Director General refused the invitation on behalf of the MBC, and instead held a press conference to justify his refusal. As a political nominee, the DG is able to act arrogantly and even defy a Minister. AFRICAN MEDIA BAROMETER MAURITIUS 2010 47