Managing communications

I refer to Monday's editorial.

Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami and, subsequently, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi chose to give me responsibility for a ministry that encompasses over 30 entities, employs thousands of workers and operates in policy areas which - to say the least - are extremely sensitive. One of the first actions that I took was to elaborate - for the first time - a number of corporate policies in areas that are common to all my responsibilities, ranging from employment to public relations, from procurement to environment.

I would also stress that the corporate policies above mentioned have been in place for years, are in writing and have been communicated to all concerned. In the particular case mentioned in the editorial, the Film Commissioner has been aware of them since I became responsible for this area over a year ago and has never objected to them to my knowledge. In fact, I understand that my staff has had previous occasions where his attention was drawn to the need that he observes them!

The Times is also absolutely incorrect in stating "The fine line running through the exchange of e-mails between a senior ministry official and The Times was that the newspaper should either interview the minister or the Film Commission chairman or nobody else". Previous interviews with various chairmen and CEOs of other entities attest to this. What my ministry insists on is that it is advised of such requests and that it decides whether such requests are acceded to or not. What is curious is that while all this was known to the Film Commissioner, my ministry was not advised by the commissioner that an interview with him had been requested.

I should also point out that - contrary to what is implied in the editorial - none of the entities that fall within my ministerial portfolio are in any way, legally or politically, autonomous or independent. They may not be departments of government in the constitutional sense but the relationship between minister and chairmen or boards is very much the same as that between a minister and a permanent secretary. No one contests the rule that civil servants do not give interviews or comments without ministerial approval so why should a Film Commissioner be any different - simply because he is not a civil servant?

"How dare the ministry decide who the free press should speak to?" asks The Times. The Times can speak to anyone but surely The Times understands that if that someone is an employee of an organisation, is not autonomous or independent in his role and has freely accepted rules and regulations on how to act, then that someone - in responding to The Times - is breaking a contract freely entered into. The Times would probably say but this is the "free press", to which I would say "hogwash" - I cannot as a minister act properly if the people who respond to me just do their own thing as it pleases them.

Here lies the crux of the problem. There is today little sense of belonging, of corporate responsibility, of feeling that one is part of a greater whole. With the false premise of autonomy or independence, some individuals think they are not answerable to anyone and purposely play the press - which is obviously very accommodating in creating issues - to embarrass other officials, including ministers. Some ministers give in because they consider bad press as the worst thing that can happen to them. I never have and will not start now.

The Times stated: "They ('some governments and individual politicians') persist in 'managing' information, do their level best to exercise control over what their officials say and, in the process, try to manipulate the free press". My objection is merely to the last part of that statement. Of course, governments and politicians "manage information" and "exercise control". Even editors do when they decide what they publish and not publish and especially when they decide which facts are to be included and which are not.

In my book this is not press manipulation - although we all know very well that the press does allow itself to be manipulated when it suits it! In my book, today any serious organisation - be it government or private - that does not manage its communications is looking for trouble.

That is why governments do it, ministries do it, political parties do it, companies and individuals do it and even newspapers do it - were it not so there would be no need for media consultants!

The editor of The Times does not like this, as he has every right to. However, I have a very similar right, that of ensuring that what is reported about my ministry is expressed correctly within an overall government policy concept and not narrowly within what may suit best an individual.

I have no problem being called names by the editor.

Dr Gatt is Minister for Investment, Industry and Information Technology.