More ethics, less law

At the beginning of July two men, one of them a priest, were arraigned in court accused of child abuse. The publication of their names was withheld. The prohibition was almost of an academic nature as the local media had bandied their names and photos about so much that anyone one who was interested did know their name.

Then the papers (The Times, July 27) informed us that the court had decided that the names could be published.

I am not conversant with matters of law but I do not have reason to doubt that the two decisions taken were in conformity with our laws and the best possible interpretation thereof. My point is another one.

A journalist was acting legally by publishing the name before the compilation of evidence started. She would have acted illegally if she published the name when the compilation started and would be acting legally today.

I have no problem with that either; that's the nature of such matters. But I propose that while something can be legal today and illegal tomorrow it cannot be ethically correct today and ethically wrong tomorrow. (Regarding the case in question I think that several reports were not ethically correct as they seriously risked leading to identifying the children in question.)

Ethics are, I submit, a better guide to journalists than laws - though the latter cannot be ignored unless one is ready to pay for the consequences.

These thoughts crossed my mind after I read the draft position paper which the Malta Press Club published on July 13 about a number of topics including conflict of interest, the protection of sources, boycotts and the relationship of PR and journalism (the paper can be accessed through the Press Club Website, http://www.maltapressclub.org.mt).

I had met the council members before the publication date and did not only praise the document as a well written draft but also proposed its publication in the hope of creating a discussion among journalists.

Praising a position paper as well-written and documented does not necessarily mean agreement with all - in fact any - of its tenets. As I did during the meeting with the council members I would like today to present some alternatives to what is written.

The biggest flaw of the document is that it tries to prove its case by mainly basing itself on references to Maltese and European laws, while it almost ignores Codes of Ethics. Almost every page of the draft position paper has references to different laws or court decisions in Malta and abroad. These references are very extensive ones; so much so that there are whole pages consisting only of reproductions of court decisions.

I would have been happier had the draft position paper presented instead references to the Code of Ethics of different countries and associations of journalists and decisions of different Press Complaints Commissions set up by the industry itself. The only references there are, and they are minimal, are to our own Code of Ethics.

The law establishes the minimum required and, fortunately, only regulates a small area of our existence. As a result there are several things which can be legal but are not ethical and vice versa. It is only ethics that can help us to build a quality assurance system which will raise the standards of journalism.

In line with the strategy of glorifying law over ethics the draft position paper reiterates once more the position taken often by the Malta Press Club, that is, it will not take a position on a subject if "the Press Act offers adequate legal remedy". Two particular cases are mentioned: the right of reply and the publication of false news.

This places our own press club out of synch with many others. I have counted 29 Codes of Ethics of different countries or organisations that consider the refusal of the right of reply as a breach of ethics. These vary from Australia to Germany, Brazil to Cyprus, and UK to Ghana.

I strongly suggest a reversal of this trend, which is damaging the credibility of the Malta Press Club. Other professional bodies would take action against members for breach of ethics even if the same member was arraigned in court for the same offence.

The draft position paper acknowledges that "it is possible to break both the law and infringe journalistic ethics". So why should not the person who feels aggrieved go to the courts for remedy when the law is broken but also appeal to the Press Complaints Commission where ethics are infringed? The Press Club should encourage people to do this and not vice versa.

This position paper had its conception through a motion I moved during the annual general meeting of the Malta Press Club last January. The seed that germinated the request was the Malta Labour Party boycott of Where's Everybody? The Nationalist Party's boycott of the Labour Party media was also mentioned. So a look at what the position paper says about boycotts is in order.

Section five deals with "boycotts and other conflicts of interest". The two paragraphs that deal with boycotts say, inter alia, that "the boycott is a right" but "should be avoided" and that "there have been a number of situations... when... a boycott was justified".

If we dig deep enough in the document we will find a veiled position against boycotts. Paragraph (f) of section one (the preamble) reproduces the section of the Laws of Malta called "Journalistic Freedoms". The draft position paper says that this means that "government cannot discriminate in favour of one or more media organisation".

It goes further: "although the Press Act deals with government when it mentions Journalistic Freedoms, ideally these principles should also apply to all political parties and their respective officials."

When everything is said and done, the conclusion is that the Press Club is, in actual fact, refusing to take a clear position on the subject. In fact paragraph 5b can be interpreted as its justification for not taking a position. I do not think that the position as explained in the draft document satisfies the request of the members present at the general meeting. The task of journalists is to speak clearly and not play around with words.

It is true that the situation is not an easy one, especially in these circumstances, but we are all asked to take difficult decisions from time to time, aren't we?

There is a particular aspect of the boycott against Where's Everybody? that makes it different from other boycotts. The Labour Party said: "We will not participate in WE's programmes." This, one can argue, is within their legal rights. But this boycott could have a grave aspect as it could be interpreted (and these ideas were thrown around) that the MLP's non-participation in fact delegitimises these programmes.

There were those who argued (even within the MLP) that such programmes (i.e., without the MLP's participation) do not fulfil the Constitutional requirements and so should not go on air. The implication, if not the logical conclusion, of the boycott by the Labour Party could be to drive the journalists of WE out of a job or drive them into submission.

I think that an attempt to deprive journalists of their means of livelihood is more serious than punching a journalist - something that TMPC takes very seriously and always condemns very strongly.

The draft position paper puts forward several other issues of importance to local journalism. Unfortunately both space and time make limited discussion mandatory. The worst thing that can happen to this position paper is that journalists ignore it. The positive effort by the members of the Press Club council should be complemented by the active participation of journalists in this debate. An intelligent discussion on the subject is a duty of respect towards colleagues and an attempt to raise journalistic standards.