Editorial

This newspaper has to date taken a conscious decision to stay out of the columnist versus magistrate debate that has been played out largely on the internet, choosing to adhere to a maxim observed at one's peril in the media world these days: fools rush in where...

Unfortunately, our media organisation does not employ any angels. But it does have a few journalists who are required to meet certain standards. If a story they are working on is to make it into print, the editorial staff must be satisfied that every effort has been made to check the facts and verify them.

At times, the speed at which they work, particularly in the case of an online or daily newspaper, can mean things go awry. But this must seldom be the case if a media organisation is to have credibility.

The last thing The Times or The Sunday Times would want to do is print a rumour without going through the painstaking process of ensuring it is true. This principle is generally applied even if there is a risk of losing a scoop to another medium.

But truth in itself cannot be the sole criterion for publication. The character of the medium is another important consideration, as well as whether the issue is deemed to be in the public interest.

We would maintain that - as a rule - what a judge, magistrate, politician or whoever does in his or her private life is not a matter that should enter the public domain. So it is highly unlikely we would ever feature a story about marital problems or extra-marital affairs.

As with every rule, one can contemplate exceptions - such as if their behaviour runs contrary to a public statement they may have made. So, for example, a politician who preaches family values and acts in the same manner as Tiger Woods should not cry privacy when the press highlight what he is doing.

We would also consider it to be legitimate territory if the private conduct of a public figure either conflicts with, or compromises, the role he or she performs.

But before going to print on such a matter, we must be satisfied that the risk of this happening is more than a theoretical possibility. Present must be some tangible factor which applies to that particular case. In other words, one must be able to point, with a degree of certainty, that there is a probable chance of fire; not just smoke, since adopting the alternative approach would drive many good people out of public life.

The columnist in this case raised certain pertinent points in the magistrate's regard which need to be followed up. But her assertions would have carried far more weight had they been backed by evidence and devoid of the needless personal element.

That said, it must be pointed out that she is by no means the only person involved in local journalism these days who has breached what we believe to be the border of what should be printable and what should not. In fact, some people willingly engage in what can only be described as print terrorism.

Now is a good time for the media in Malta to use this case to reflect on whether they should continue to go further down this road - with all the increased hits or sales that will bring - or whether this is a timely warning for them to pull back and concentrate on what would really contribute to improving life in this country. But this can only happen if everyone complies. Action, like charity, begins at home.