Changes in practice

The step being taken by the Broadcasting Authority to establish a code for news and current affairs is a positive one. It seems to indicate that the BA is moving away from regulating almost exclusivly by the stop-watch and moving into the qualitative area of news and current affairs.

The document issued by the BA is entitled simply "Consultative Document on the Code on News and Current Affairs" (Kodici). It has been in the pipeline for at least the past couple of years and from information imparted to this author it seems that a wide consultation was carried out, even if co-operation with the BA, it seems, was not always optimum.

The Broadcasting Act 2000 (Article 20) provides for such a code to be drawn up and it is not the first attempt at such a code in this area. Similar steps were taken in the area of advertising1 and this is being enforced through the levy of fines.

The basic question to be asked about this new document is regarding the nature of the document. Various sections of the Kodici give the document various functions. It takes the guise of a manual in section 13 when it requires stand-uppers by the public service broadcaster. It dons the mantle of ethics in section 8 when defending the right to privacy. But most of all, this Kodici is a Code of Practice, following closely the path laid out by the ITC code of practice.2

It is debatable if a code of practice should be the reponsibility of the Broadcasting Authority or of a journalistic governing body. To cite two examples: this has been the case in Germany where a press code of pluralistic principles was adopted by the Press Council in collaboration with the press associations of the country; in Switzerland it was the Swiss Federation of Journalists who issued a declaration of duties and rights of journalists.

In the United Kingdom the code of practice was ratified by the Press Complaints Commission in November 1997. During the discussions in the Malta Press Club regarding the latest code of ethics, it was suggested that such a code of practice be formulated and adopted as the Malta Press Club is a more appropriate forum to judge journalistic practice than an authority which is guardian of the law.

The law defines principles while a code of practice provides guidelines for acceptable behaviour within those principles. In Part Two of the proposed code, one encounters the first mention of "interest", in two instances: public interest (article 2.5) and conflict of interest (article 2.2).

The introduction in this code of the concept of public interest is interesting since the underlying argument in such a case are normally based on value systems. The public interest is arguably always an aspect of the justification for the actions of the stakeholders in the political arena.

The unrestricted mannar in which Habermas (The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Polity Press, 1989) saw the discussion of the public sphere was not an unregulated one but one which sought to maximise freedom of expression, association and assembly.

The media, as major players in the public sphere, are supposed to serve these principles in the safguarding of democracy (Blumler and Gurevitch, The Crisis of Public Communication, London, 1995). Such safeguards are premised on values such as those suggested by Hall (Values Shift, Rockport, 1994) and studied by Discern in the Signs of the Times annual publications.

However, codes of practice enunciate more clearly the parameters within which journalists should operate. The UK Code of Practice and the ITC Programme Code define public interest as including the exposure of crime or serious misdemeanour, the protection of health and safety, and preventing individuals or organisations from misleading the public.3 The proposed code attempts to define public interest by citing examples (Article 8.2) but the section would benefit greatly from a public debate.

Article 2.2 of the Kodici, which states that "Care should be taken in order to ascertain that membership of other groups and organisations does not create or give rise to potential conflict of interest". Negrine (The Communication of Politics, London, 1996) discusses the role of the media as the inquisitor, as the means of enforcing responsibility.

Given the nature of the Maltese mediascape, one finds an inherent potential conflict of interest in the newsrooms pertaining to institutions. Section 9 of the Kodici seeks to find a way out of this maze and tries to strike a balance by defining in a pithy and straightforward way the nature of news value, surely one of the better written sections of the Kodici.

This section, although in no way ground-breaking or innovative in the interpretation of news value, sticks to what, presumably, the Kodici set out to do: provide clear guidelines for journalists so that there would be no conflict between the interest of the institution and the public interest.

This is further underlined by the Kodici in Section 6, which requires "care and discretion... over the use of politicians or people publicly aligned to a political party to produce or present news" (Article 6.1). Further, "No official or representative of a political party or trade union should participate in the production or presentation of news" (Article 6.2).

Interestingly, while the section is entitled "Politicians in News Programmes", the articles refer to news. These are two different arguments altogether. While one can envisage programmes presented by people aligned to political parties, trade union representatives, etc., news items should never be left in the hands of directly interested parties.

This is not a case for "care and discretion". In the case of controversy, of which news is largely made up, in an environment as politically heated as ours, due impartiality and even probably accuracy could be comprommised by politicians producing or presenting news and, consequently, the news would end up sounding "as if it forms part of an organisation`s propoganda machine" (Article 3.8).

However, if this article is to be truly enforced, the enforcement must extend to other members of the owning istitutions (e.g., the Church, the business community).

However, the Kodici attempts to accommodate politicians in Part 6, Article 16.1.1. In this article, political stations are exempted from the part of the Kodici (Article 9.2) which states: "A news item shall consist of the reporting of the occurrence of a fact - which should be an event, a statement or the publication of a document - shorn of any comment."

This is completely objectionable as it seeks to condone and perpetuate a situation where fact changes colour according to station. This article, 16.1.1, is the end result of a Kodici which has failed in its most basic priority of defining its raison d`être and the interests of the public it serves.

Not only, 16.1.4 makes a novel distinction not envisaged in the law which it is supposed to serve: it distinguishes between `political` and implicitly `other` stations by naming the political stations. In a document that is subordinate to the law, one cannot and must not seem to accept the principle that political stations are regulated differently in their news and current affairs content. Both the law and the guidelines issued by the Broadcasting Authority differentiate between the public service broadcaster and the other stations, thus underlining the greater onus on the public service broadcaster. Any other form of distinction cannot be and is not acceptable.

In conclusion, one might say that the positive aspects, such as the attempt at outlining public interest and the protection of victims and children`s rights are outweighed by the negative attempt at introducing a distinction between radio stations not envisaged in the law. There are aspects such as the clauses relating to entrapment which are laudable and provide guidelines for both journalists and editors. Certain sections are incongruous, such as that requesting PBS to make more use of stand-ups. Surely that is a matter for house policy?

Finally, a word regarding translation: the Maltese rendition of "grajjiet ta` llum" for "current affairs" is not the same as "grajjiet kurrenti" and limits the scope of news and news programmes. However these points could be expanded on in a national conference.

References

1. See Third Schedule of Broadcasting Act and Code for Advertising Standards and Sponsorships (1996).

2. ITC Programme Code - Spring 2001.

3. UK Code of Practice access through http://www.uta.fi/ethicnet/ uk2.html

Ms DeBono is news manager of RTK radio station.