|
Political interference, manipulation of the news for advertisers’ benefits, ethical dilemmas in the newsrooms…is the Maltese press immune from all this?
That there is interference is what an outsider might conclude, judging by the recently renamed Institute of Maltese Journalists’ (formerly Press Club) reluctance to take a stand on controversial issues including imminent threats to the role of journalism in a democracy.
Take Public Broadcasting Services as an example. The government announces a massive downsizing exercise that will reduce the workforce there to a mere 60 people, with a newsroom made of some six journalists, and nobody at the Institute lifts a ‘public’ finger.
Sure, the General Workers’ Union is happy with the outcome: redundant workers will only be redeployed with the government, enjoying more or less the same working conditions. But what about the major stakeholder – the public? How will Malta’s public service broadcaster provide good quality journalism and current affairs programmes with only a handful of journalists?
When Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi attacked RAI and sacked journalists Enzo Biagi and Michele Santoro, he had to face public outrage. Over here, the organisation that is supposed to defend the press, remains silent. It only shows its teeth whenever journalists are physically assaulted. But is physical violence the only threat to Maltese journalism?
Obviously not, says the institute’s chairman, Malcolm Naudi.
So why doesn’t the institute take a public stand on the hot issues affecting the press? Doesn’t the restructuring impinge upon PBS’s democratic function in our society?
“One thing I can say definitely about the institute is that it tries to take a long-term view,” Naudi says, by way of an explanation.
“Although the developments at PBS affect even our institute, we tend to try to be a force of unity among Maltese journalists. Our work is very low-key. While you’re right in saying public statements are lacking, the press club very often does not feel the need to come out in that way.
“We will react, as we have reacted in the past, when there is violence against journalists, but in the areas such as PBS, because we come from very diverse backgrounds, it is very difficult to come up with a unified voice. This is very much a reflection of the society in which we live.”
But the institute could still warn the government not to touch the newsroom, or if anything to strengthen it and keep it at arm’s length from the government. It says nothing of the sort.
The same applies to the judiciary’s arbitrary decisions to ban publication of information of public interest. The most glaring case remains the paedophilia scandal at St Joseph’s Institute last year, when the court banned the publication of the names of the accused. Once again, the then Press Club did not protest at the decision.
“There are legal procedures that have to be respected, unfortunately,” he says. “I don’t think that the Institute should be challenging the court in this area. If our members strongly believe that something should be done we have to set up some sort of ad-hoc committee with representatives from the judiciary and see how certain things can be improved.
“Through the Institute we have taken many initiatives within the law courts to improve relations with the press – there is definitely room for more improvement and this will come about through constant dialogue.
“One cannot react precipitously. It always backfires. As an institution we cannot afford to take such positions. We work with the people and institutions involved, such as the Police Commissioner, people in high places to get certain messages across.
“We don’t do this out in the open, on the media, because very often it would backfire. I know there is almost a conflict of interest – as a journalist it is my duty to give my opinion and state it on the media, but that’s not the role of the press club.”
Mr Naudi’s cautious approach is somehow indicative of his own background in journalism. Over the last 25 years, he has worked his way up The Times hierarchy – Malta’s media establishment par excellance – where today he is Deputy Editor of The Sunday Times.
He says that increasing competition in the media has helped raise the standards.
“If you look at the papers where I am employed (The Times) people will tell you that the standards have improved tremendously thanks to competition. People have had to look at what the competing media were doing and make sure they are more or less up to date with what’s going on; things like surveys which never used to be done, things like coverage abroad, going on assignments, the different supplements and magazines that we see in the publications.”
Still, he sees the media as “being reactive, rather than proactive,” in its reporting.
“Many people complain that there isn’t enough investigative journalism. I see that as a question of resources. You have to accept that to investigate you need to put aside resources to do so. You also need to spend considerable amounts of money to produce stories.”
Apart from resources, there is also the hidden hand of advertising which can muzzle the press.
“When it comes to the commercial media – because not all media run on commercial lines – advertising definitely has a say, and very often we have situations where advertisers have a big influence. Or we would have certain messages coming around that ‘we want more coverage of this’ or ‘use this press release’ and things like that.”
I tell Mr Naudi that the problem is that there is no independent organisation which is acting as a constant media watchdog, pinpointing propaganda, conflicts of interest within the media and the biases towards advertisers, among other issues.
“These are areas that have to be debated and we can create a forum for debate. Later this year we will be organising one of our conferences to coincide in November with the 15 anniversary of the Institute and that would be an ideal way of launching this debate. I believe that certain issues that relate to the media should be debated internally by the media and not aired in public.”
Isn’t it in the public interest, however, to discuss openly and transparently the media ownership interests and biases?
“Do you ever hear public debates about issues related to companies’ accounts, management and things like that?”
But journalism has a public function which demands constant self-criticism and scrutiny.
“I believe that issues have to be discussed in their proper forum. It’s a process of maturity. We are not fully mature to get people with opposing viewpoints discuss around the same table.
“At the elections last year it was difficult for me as chairman to reach a quorum for a meeting to discuss the issues surrounding electoral campaigning – because individual council members with different political backgrounds couldn’t come together at that time of high tension, to debate media issues.”
Does he believe journalists working for political parties can ever act as independent-minded journalists?
“I believe they are independent-minded; whether they can act so is the question. Whenever we meet each other during press coverages we talk openly. What we discuss may be different from what appears in the various media. Journalists have constraints – it’s not easy to work in the political media because you are constantly required to follow the party line even though this can be different from the direction you may want to follow in certain instances. But his happens also in commercial media organisations whereby media owners may impose a particular position which you as journalist have to accept. The owners call the shots at the end of the day.”
As if to confirm the Institute’s fear of being dragged into controversy, its Press Ethics Commission – which hears complaints about alleged breaches to the journalists’ code of ethics – chooses to publicise only cases that are concluded in favour of the complainants.
Presided over by Chief Justice Emeritus Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici, the latest Commission decision regards an advert published in The Sunday Times and MaltaToday of 1 February about MLP Secretary General Jason Micallef. The commission said it disapproved the behaviour of the two newspaper’s editors for allowing the text in the advert paid by the PN to appear without stating it was a paid advert, reflecting “badly on the character of the person mentioned.” After The Sunday Times editor appeared in front of the commission (MaltaToday’s does not recognise the commission), the commission ruled in favour of Mr Micallef, adding that the advert itself should have never been published.
This provoked a controversy, with The Sunday Times editor calling the ruling “unacceptable” and saying that had he been confronted with the charge as reflected in the decision, he would have defended himself on the grounds of freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
More revealingly, The Sunday Times editor referred to a decision taken by the Commission last September and kept under wraps, in which a complaint by Opposition Leader Alfred Sant was turned down.
Mr Naudi insists on the Commission’s autonomy from the Institute.
“The controversy arose because the Commission decided to go into the wording of the advert, which we didn’t write,” he says, defending The Sunday Times editor.
And why was the negative decision about Alfred Sant’s complaint announced only this month?
“It is the policy of the press ethics Commission that when there is a negative decision this is not circulated. Alfred Sant made a complaint against The Sunday Times and that complaint was rejected. The fact that Alfred Sant made a complaint should not be of news value.”
Sant being a public figure, it is definitely of news value, I interject.
“What can be argued is that when Alfred Sant made the complaint, it was advertised fully. Within the Labour media there was definitely full coverage of his complaint. The Commission believes – and I have no influence over the Commission – that when there is a negative result it shouldn’t publicise the decision. If Alfred Sant had been successful, it would have been publicised.”
It was published anyway, seven months since the decision was taken. Was it published just because Jason Micallef’s complaint was upheld, somehow making up for negative outcome for the MLP leader?
“It was publicised in a different context. The Sunday Times mentioned the Alfred Sant complaint as a way of arguing that there were two weights and two measures. Obviously, now that The Sunday Times has brought this up, it will be discussed by the Commission and the Institute and we’ll see whether there is scope for fine-tuning. No system is perfect.”
And perhaps that is the moral of the story for the press in any democratic country: that it has to live with imperfections and conflicting views that can never be reconciled.
|
