In Greek mythology, Cerberus was the three-headed watchdog which guarded the entrance of Hades, the god of the Underworld, the final abode of human souls after death.

The ancient Greeks and Romans developed the custom of putting gifts with corpses so that Cerberus would pass them by. In the Aeneid, Virgil spoke of Aeneas who threw a drugged cake to Cerberus, thus enabling the hero to pass the monster in safety. Today, the phrase ‘a sop to Cerberus’ means something offered to appease someone, to shut them up, an appeasement.

The greatest Cerberus of us all

Let us fast forward to current Malta. Journalists have the role of the watchdog, not to guard the underworld but to expose what happens in the underworld whether this is made up just of criminals or whether it is a concoction of organised crime, big business and politicians.

The greatest Cerberus of us all was Daphne Caruana Galizia. The kingpins of the underworld did not throw her a drugged cake but exploded her to smithereens. Before doing that they drugged and poisoned public opinion.

The cabal running the Office of the Prime Minister dehumanised her and demonised her. The apparatus of the state was not used to defend a journalist. It was used to prepare the way for the murder of the journalist.

A public inquiry declared that the state is guilty. The public inquiry is providing journalists and the public we serve with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build an enabling environment truly protective of journalists.

One of the proposals from the inquiry is for the setting up of a committee of experts composed of academics, experts in media law, journalists and owners of media houses. This committee would have the role of examining in depth the status of journalism, the exercise of freedom of expression and recognition of the status that should be enjoyed by journalists, among other matters.

Definitely not the prime minister

The obvious question that begs itself is: who should be in the driving seat of this process?

The more than obvious answer is: definitely not the prime minister. If there is one lesson to learn from the assassination of Caruana Galizia, and from the vile revelations still rocking the country to its foundations, is that journalists should tell the government: hands off journalism, do not interfere.

Journalists should be in the driving seat of the reform while the prime minister and the government should take a backseat.

The report of the public inquiry gives us journalists a once-in-a-lifetime possibility of setting up structures which will strengthen the press in Malta and have it truly and concretely recognised as the fourth pillar of democracy.

The description of journalists as the fourth pillar of democracy is not idle talk. It should have tangible constitutional, legislative and organisational ramifications.

Oscar Wilde used to say that “In America, the president reigns for four years and journalism governs forever and ever”.

Journalists should be in the driving seat of the reform while the prime minister and the government should take a backseat- Fr Joe Borg

This is also true to Malta where, unfortunately, journalism does not have the legal backing, protection and recognition as a pillar of democracy on par with the other pillars of democracy, that is the executive, the judiciary and the legislature.

Journalists are not like, for example, doctors, accountants, periti, etc. No one considers these as estates or pillars of democracy. They give valuable service and are consequently regulated, and need a licence to operate, which can also be revoked. Journalists are not simply service providers. We are the watchdog of the other estates.

Red lines that should not be crossed

Journalists worth their salt, for example, should be totally against licensing of journalists and against having a regulatory authority for journalists. These two proposals would do nothing but undermine journalism. These are red lines which cannot be crossed for, if crossed, they cannot be uncrossed.

I was shocked to read a press release by the Office of the President saying that he discussed with the Institute of Maltese Journalists the setting up of ‘a national regulatory structure’.

It is beyond shocking to be told that, during a meeting of the same institute with the prime minister, the idea of enlarging the scope of the Broadcasting Authority to cover the press was mooted.

How can any self-respecting journalist not charge out of a room when someone in power even mentions regulation of journalism?

One would not even start to imagine a scenario where the members of the institute are not averse to the idea of regulation. That would be the ultimate betrayal of journalism.

Journalists should be self-regulated not regulated. The self-regulatory body should be responsible for the surveillance of the adherence to a code of ethics drafted by journalists, not imposed from above. Such self-regulation bodies vary from those which ‘name and shame’ (like the IĠM) to those which can even impose a fine, such as IPSO in England. One can study the best model for Malta.

Journalists should insist that it is they who should come up with the names of the members and terms of reference on the committee of experts proposed by the public inquiry. They would then discuss these with the authorities to find a consensus that would ensure this committee has adequate resources, carries out extensive public consultation and works within a timeframe.

It should publish its report and propose to parliament the suggested legislative changes.

We are journalists, not prostitutes. We discuss principles first, subsidies later. The basic agreement about principles should be the basis of everything else. It is a do-or-die scenario.

I sincerely hope that Cerberus will hold a principled position and not be duped by a sop from Castille.