Governments prefer to decide for themselves what the public should know and when. Which makes obtaining information from official sources an uphill battle for the independent media.
One way of doing that is through the Freedom of Information Act. Yet, often the official reply is that disclosure is not possible. Journalists worth their salt do not stop there.
They turn to trusted sources/contacts to dig deeper, particularly in matters of national interest.
In a democratic society, the press has the role of ‘public watchdog’, informing the people on matters of public interest. This is essential for citizens to be able to make informed decisions, notably at election time. It also contributes to good governance and the rule of law because it keeps the authorities on their toes.
In her inaugural address President Myriam Spiteri Debono felt she should define the media as “the fourth pillar of democracy”. In exercising scrutiny of both the government and the opposition, the media “spurs them on to better themselves and be of greater service to the people”, she declared.
Just days ago, a superior court judge too highlighted the role, indeed, the duty, of the media in keeping the public informed. The fundamental right to freedom of expression, as protected by the European Convention of Human Rights and the constitution of Malta, includes the right to receive and impart information.
Mr Justice Toni Abela was evidently not happy the findings of the hospitals’ concession inquiry had been leaked. Still, he declared: “If [what has been published} is indeed the formal inquiry, [the press} have the right to publish it”.
It is a meaningful declaration that strengthens the investigative media.
Leaking sensitive information is not unprecedented. For example, phone chats between certain high-profile individuals have been published because it was considered in the public interest doing so, though it saw a judge ordering the police to investigate who had leaked the chats. Acknowledging the duty of the media to publish cannot and should not be divorced from its right to protect sources, especially where investigative journalism is involved.
Granted, journalists’ rights are not absolute. Still, the national interest in unearthing abuse and pushing for effective investigations and, where necessary, prosecution must prevail.
The promotion and effective upholding of human rights depend on good governance and the rule of law, which have the same aim: the common good. That demands that the powers that be strike the correct balance between rights and duties.
In the Reynolds vs Times Newspapers Ltd case more than two decades ago, the House of Lords had observed: “To be justified, any curtailment of freedom of expression [including the right to receive information] must be conveniently established by a compelling countervailing consideration and the means employed must be proportionate to the end sought to be achieved.”
For the record, the case involved two fundamental rights: freedom of expression and the protection of one’s reputation.
The perseverance of the independent media and civil society has, on more than one occasion now, brought cases of state capture and corruption to their logical conclusion, despite the police commissioner’s and the attorney general’s unwillingness/inability to investigate and prosecute wrongdoers in high places.
That role ought to be encouraged not in any way discouraged, including by ensuring journalistic sources are protected.
The Whistleblower Act still leaves a lot to be desired and without such protection, sources risk being deterred from helping the press in informing the public on matters that are essentially in the public interest.