The only morsel of ‘good’ news in the latest ‘Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era’ report is open to debate when considering the developments post-October 2017.
It says fundamental protection remains “the only area where no high-risk scores were registered”.
Academically, such a conclusion may be justified but, judging by the situation on the ground and what has emerged since Daphne Caruana Galizia’s brutal murder six years ago, many are likely to have their own doubts.
On that afternoon of October 16, 2017, the freedom of the press suddenly came to the fore and calls for an urgent media reform became increasingly loud.
The findings of the public inquiry into the journalist’s murder made it amply clear the way journalists in Malta are exposed to so many physical and legal dangers.
So many pledges, declarations of commitment and plans of action were made by the official side. Still, bar some minor changes and tweaks here and there, the situation remains much the same.
Obtaining official information and freely exercising the right to freedom of speech remain challenging.
“The much-needed media reform is long overdue and if the country is to strengthen the media landscape into one that is truly democratic, this needs to be implemented without further, unnecessary delay,” the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom’s report concluded.
It noted that independent media practitioners and civil society members have made recommendations that are worth consideration. These include proposals by the government-appointed committee of experts on the media and by former editor Fr Joe Borg and human rights lawyer Therese Comodini Cachia in their book Reforming Malta’s Media System.
Still, the ‘fourth estate’ in this country remains in suspended animation, awaiting the government’s benevolence to ensure the media can truly and effectively be the voice of and information provider for society. It is by now crystal clear that is no priority for this administration.
The report pointed out that most of the proposals listed “echo those of last year, since little or no progress has been registered in the past 12 months”. Ironically, even the European Union, which is usually slow and cumbersome when it comes to action, beat us to it.
Just days after the report was published, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of a robust anti-SLAPP directive, known as ‘Daphne’s Law’. It aims at protecting journalists, human rights activists and artists from intimidatory cross-border lawsuits meant to silence them.
Why such measures and those proposed in Malta, but still unimplemented, are necessary emerges clearly from a declaration made by Roberta Metsola. The ability for journalists to report freely on issues that are a matter of public interest is not just important but essential to the values that underpin the European Union, such as equality, democracy and the rule of law.
But that may not fall within the government’s ‘road map’.
It prefers retaining a hold on the public broadcaster, having political parties owning and running their own broadcasting stations, nominating the members of the Broadcasting Authority and pretending the independent media does not exist.
The Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom calls for a collaborative effort to implement the much-needed media reform through a process that is transparent and truly inclusive of all stakeholders.
Failure to do so is an affront to democracy itself.