Your editorial (February 21) explains why you have decided to stay out of the columnist versus magistrate debate being played out on the internet.
You state your reasons for taking this stand and finally call on the media to follow your example, not to go down this road but to pull back and concentrate on what would really contribute to improving life in this country.
Your editorial hits hard at the very heart of society and if you really believe in democracy you ought to give your readers the chance to express their views regarding this important matter.
In the opening paragraph you state that "fools rush in" but who would equate 'foolishness' with 'investigative journalism'?
To start with, have you assigned any of your able journalists to investigate this very serious matter?
This would have enabled you to enlighten the many thousands of your regular readers about the prevailing state of our judicial system, especially following the recent debacle of the former Chief Justice and his colleague?
On January 30, Daphne Caruana Galizia said that "Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera has been undergoing investigation by the Commission for the Administration of Justice for the last year or so".
Surely confirmation of this which should be quite easy to obtain, would have been a clear indication whether Ms Caruana Galizia is credible in her very serious allegations.
If this statement turned out to be untrue, then it would also have been your responsibility to denounce her as a barefaced liar. But, on the other hand, its confirmation would have been your pointer "with a degree of certainty, that there is a probable chance of fire; not just smoke ..." The fact that the Commission for the Administration of Justice did not deny that the magistrate has been undergoing an investigation for a long time points to its veracity.
Contrary to what you state, cleansing our judicial system, or any other public institution, of rogue members would attract good people to participate in public life. What definitely drives many good people out of public life is the lack of ethics and abusive behaviour by rogues in high positions who have such a detrimental effect on society.
I feel that you, as the most popular and influential paper in these islands, are falling far short of what your average reader expects of you.
You end your editorial with this appalling statement: "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".
Is condoning the abusive behaviour of people in high authority by the media's silence, conducive to improving life in Malta? I detect a quantum shift in your paper's values!
To boot, you state: "But this can only happen if everyone complies. Action, like charity, begins at home." Excuse me if I have misunderstood this, but is this a call for omertà?
Editor's note: Mr Scerri appears to have misunderstood not just the last paragraph, but the entire editorial. Moreover, the Commission for the Administration of Justice never confirms whether it is looking into a complaint.