It has been more than a year since the publication of the public inquiry findings into the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia and a long string of appeals for solid action by both civil society in Malta and international organisations.
And the media reform proposals unveiled last Wednesday may not be as sweeping as many would have expected on the fifth anniversary of Caruana Galizia’s brutal assassination,
Still, the bills unveiled can be deemed a basis on which to protect journalism and journalists. It all depends, though, on what happens next.
The prelude to Caruana Galizia’s murder itself made it abundantly clear how journalists are exposed both legally and personally, especially those doing investigative work. This lack of protection even extends to their families and heirs, to say nothing of their sources and their employers.
The reality is that it will still be possible to stifle ‘unfriendly’ media by stopping advertising, instituting SLAPP suits, imposing garnishee orders, ignoring or rejecting requests for information that is in the public interest, demonising ‘nosy’ journalists and persecuting suspected sources. And all this, of course, only leads to a climate that facilitates the silencing of journalists by more deadly means.
Just like it had resisted launching a public inquiry into the murder until the pressure was too much to bear, the government is now saying it wants to first have in place the right environment so that, as the justice minister put it, journalists can fulfil their democratic duty.
The prelude to Caruana Galizia’s murder itself made it abundantly clear how journalists are exposed both legally and personally, especially those doing investigative work
The bills follow recommendations made by the public inquiry itself and proposals by the government-appointed committee of media experts. Moving from a situation where journalists had practically no protection at all to introducing constitutional and legal provisions meant to boost the fourth pillar of democracy can only be welcomed. However, it still needs to be ascertained that, given the realities faced by the media on the ground, the proposed legal amendments are only a precursor to the drastic changes needed for our democracy to function properly.
As Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, had said, our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
There must be more attention paid to the fundamental tenets of freedom of expression, the right to disseminate and receive information, and the public interest.
It would certainly be a good thing to have a constitution that recognises the journalist’s role and contribution. However, more important would be to entrench in the constitution the principle of press freedom. Intrinsically linked to the right of freedom of expression is the right to seek and obtain timely information from the state. These should be treated as sacrosanct, untouchable principles.
As work on these recent proposals hopefully gains momentum, the government and all stakeholders must demonstrate effective goodwill to ensure this will not just be another paper reform. A good place to start is by ensuring that requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act are handled expeditiously and that non-disclosure becomes the exception rather than the rule. We need to start seeing all arms of the government giving out information which is deemed in the public interest.
It is clear to everyone by now that the government and its entities have persisted in refusing to give answers when an answer doesn’t suit their interests. There is nothing in the press reform proposed that could indicate that this could change. And this is worrying.
Much work still needs to be done to make sure the fourth and final pillar of democracy in Malta is given the recognition and the constitutional and legal protection it needs.