The content of our social networks is becoming more and more like a cesspit of insults, vilifications, invasions of privacy and all sorts of inanities even by those who should know better. Truth be told, it is not easy to know what the right side of the demarcation of privacy is, as more and more people on Facebook make mincemeat of their own privacy.

I am not an avid user of the social networks but I use them often enough to notice the tone on several Facebook pages is becoming harsher. The same applies for the comments many people post under the reports up­loaded on the websites of several newspapers. There is misinformation galore, particularly by those who pontificate on the subjects about which they know close to nothing.

I had, on more than one occasion, commented on the state of our blogosphere. Take, for example, Malta’s most popular blog, that written by journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. She is a courageous, able and effective journalist. This solitary lady, with just a keyboard, has made some of the most exclusive journa­listic scoops ever published in Malta. There were times when I defended her and there were times I criticised her.

However, I cannot fathom why the site that gives us the best breaking news is regu­larly tainted by gossip, which clearly lowers its standard and undermines its effectiveness.

The blogosphere took a turn for the worse when the Office of the Prime Minister started to indirectly finance a blog which is simply full of tripe and gossip. The blog will earn its author, Genn Bedingfield, votes from core Labour voters, but it does not contribute anything to professional journalism, humane communication or intelligent comment.

Pope Francis discussed the social networks and the blogosphere in his message on the 50th World Day of Communication in May 2016. He clearly stated how things should be:

“E-mails, text messages, social networks and chats can also be fully human forms of communication. It is not technology which determines whether or not communication is authentic, but rather the human heart and our capacity to use wisely the means at our disposal.”

The editor of that paper deemed it fit to carry a story about an incident caused by a vulnerable private person

The Pope realistically points out the two contrasting paths these networks face us with:

“Social networks can facilitate relationships and promote the good of society, but they can also lead to further polarisation and division between individuals and groups. The digital world is a public square, a meeting-place where we can either encourage or demean one another, engage in a meaningful discussion or unfair attacks.”

It seems that many are unfortunately taking the worse of these alternatives. Crossing red lines has become the order of the day.

Fortunately we have a different and more positive scenario on the legacy media front as, by and large, our print and broadcasting media have steered away from the extremes so common on the social networks. The line between the privacy of public and private persons is generally respected. Vulnerable people are protected. Our print and broadcasting media generally err on the side of caution; and they are right to do so.

However, a line was dangerously crossed by a front page story appearing on Illum of July 31. The editor of that paper deemed it fit to carry a story about an incident caused by a vulnerable private person.

The fact that she has recently gone through a cancer operation and is undergoing chemo­therapy should have lit all the red bulbs to make the editor spike the story. The editor could say that he did not know this but he surely knew that the person in question has mental health issues. The editor knew and wrote in the story that following the incident the person in question was taken to Mater Dei. So he surely knew that she was not taken to a ward that cares for physical ailments.

The person was identified by name. The incident was reported in all its details over two pages and with file photos that an ordinary reader would have surely mistaken for photos taken during the incident.

The editor also informed us that the person is the sister of the leader of the Nationalist Party. How can one justify this publication whose sole aim was to hurt a public person because of the behaviour of a close relative who most probably did what she did because of her vulnerable situation?

I had on previous occasions criticised direct and indirect attacks on family members of people in public life, whether the office is political or otherwise. Quite naturally, family members lose a lot of (but not all) their privacy rights when they are paraded around for political gain or when they themselves, for one reason or another, prefer to bathe in the public limelight. But when this is not the case, the privacy rights of family members of public persons should be fully respected, more so when the private person is vulnerable.

The rights of vulnerable people are well protected by subsidiary legislation about their participation or representation during radio or TV programmes. Newspapers, on the other hand, are covered by a self-regulating code of ethics which unfortunately is not very effective. It would be shameful if newspaper editors stopped being as strict as they were up till now about such issues.

The words of Pope Francis in the above quoted document once more come to mind:

“Communication has the power to build bridges, to enable encounter and inclusion, and thus to enrich society. How beautiful it is when people select their words and actions with care, in the effort to avoid misunderstandings, to heal wounded memories and to build peace and harmony. Words can build bridges between individuals and within fami­lies, social groups and peoples. This is possible both in the material world and the digital world. Our words and actions should be such as to help us all escape the vicious circles of condemnation and vengeance which continue to ensnare individuals and nations, encouraging expressions of hatred.”

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt