The disgraceful events played out on television recently when journalists, reporting an arraignment were threatened, intimidated and abused by a group of four people should not be dismissed or forgotten.

The light sentences meted out to those who admitted these offences requires further examination. This behaviour is not only publicly unacceptable but a threat to our democracy itself.

Democracy is much more than putting an ‘X’ in a box every few years.

When Malta became an independent nation over 60 years ago, we began the road to a wholly, self-governing nation.

A year later, our country joined the Council of Europe where key prerequisites included democracy through the rule of law, an effective, fully functioning justice system and the tackling of money laundering.

These were later enshrined in EU law when we joined the European Union in 2004.

Part of living in a democracy is that journalists have fundamental rights. They have rights to report freely without hindrance, to investigate. They should also not merely repeat what politicians say, but they have a duty to investigate what they say.

Journalists are trained to be credible, receive appropriate training in the law and are bound not to exaggerate and scaremonger. They are there to protect our democracy.

In recent years, a disturbing trend has emerged in several countries, particularly those led by right-wing governments, where journalists are increasingly facing antagonism and hostility. This shift is often fueled by political leaders’ rhetoric to delegitimise the media, portraying journalists as enemies of the people or purveyors of "fake news". The consequences of this rhetoric has sometimes proven deadly.

The safety of journalists is of paramount importance without whom we would lose a crucial component in the democratic functioning of the institution of our democracy. That’s why the incident outside the law courts needs to be evaluated further.

Next to heinous crimes, perjury is regarded by legal systems worldwide as unacceptable, for this is barefaced lying under oath which interferes with the course of justice, and in itself is a threat to our democracy.

So, when questionable sentences are handed down to those who threaten and undermine our democracy, what example does that set for politicians who break the law? Just as culpable are our politicians who dismiss legitimate, journalistic enquiries, refuse to answer direct questions.

There is more than a subtle difference between, ‘In the public interest’ and ‘Of interest to the public’. The latter could be referred to the dalliance of a politician which might be of passing interest, but of zero significant news value and is not published. The former is quite different.

'In the public interest' means that the public ‘will be seriously disadvantaged without this information’. We should know as it allows us to make a decision when we get back to that little cross in the box.

We have all too often seen politicians deflect awkward questions by stating they did no wrongdoing, which is followed by a deluge of online threats against the journalist who deemed to ask an elected and paid representative of our nation legitimate questions.

In 2025, journalists are increasingly subjected to daily trolling and attempts to undermine their work. It is evident that we have yet to learn from the tragic fate of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

While allowing the guilty to walk free with wide smiles on their faces, it is surely time for our government to publish the long-awaited white paper on the protection of our journalists.