This week has been characterised by two very important developments that can have an enormous influence on the state of journalism in Malta and, consequently, on the state of our democracy and people’s right to know.
One document, in the form of draft legislation, was presented to parliament by the Nationalist Party on Monday. On Tuesday, then, the government mounted its counter-proposal.
The government set up a ‘committee of experts’ tasked with “with the aim of analysing the journalism and media sector in Malta, underline areas which require development and make recommendations to the prime minister”.
It is shocking that the four-page document makes no reference to the fundamental premise that journalism is the fourth pillar of democracy. It seems that this descriptor of journalism, whose paternity was attributed by Thomas Carlyle to Edmund Burke way back in the 18th century, has not reached Castille. Neither is the committee tasked with the setting up of a legislative, administrative and sociocultural environment enabling journalism to make a qualitative leap forward.
Perhaps one should not be too surprised. This government has made mincemeat of, among many other things, the Freedom of Information Act. The prime minister is not one who would want to enact the fundamental changes that would help the media to really become the fourth pillar of democracy, able without fear or favour to challenge the political or commercial powers.
I will not comment on the individual members of the committee. But even if they are the best people on the island, their terms of reference do not mandate the setting up of structures which will strengthen the press in Malta so much that it truly and concretely becomes the fourth pillar of democracy.
The prime minister, knowing that he is not prepared for a paradigm shift, tried to impress us by a whole list of organisations with which he had “constructive and comprehensive” discussions resulting in a “lot of common ground”.
Whom does the prime minister think he is kidding? Does he want us to believe that all those organisations agree with what he is proposing? A founder member of the Institute of Maltese Journalists resigned in protest while one of Malta’s top journalists refused to be part of this exercise.
My advice to the committee members is to ignore the prime minister’s two-month deadline- Fr Joe Borg
The Nationalist Party, on the other hand, presented to parliament two draft bills which give a very solid basis on which this paradigm shift can be built. Quite naturally, the proposed bills could be improved by more consultation with media professionals and several other stakeholders, given that journalism is a public good that serves society, not just journalists.
Through a bill titled “an act to declare and recognise freedom of the media as one of the pillars of good governance”, the PN proposed changes to the constitution which would place media freedom on a solid basis, more than it ever was, and guarantee a qualitative leaf for media freedom.
The PN also presented a bill (which, truth be told, needs more polishing and buttressing) titled “an act to provide for the protection from strategic lawsuits against public participation (‘SLAPP suits’)”.
Lack of space prevents me from doing justice to the provisions of this bill. But the constitutional changes proposed oblige the state to:
• Recognise media freedom as an essential pillar of democracy and is duty bound to promote its independence and safeguard media pluralism.
• Have a positive obligation to protect and promote media freedom by providing an enabling environment for journalists and other media actors.
• Protect journalists from SLAPP actions.
• Promote broad participation in public debate in matters of public interest and shall ensure that journalists, other media actors and members of the public are not discouraged from voicing their opinions on issues of public interest.
• Recognise the obligation of the press to impart, in a manner consistent with its responsibilities, information and ideas on all matters of public interest, acting as a public watchdog.
• Facilitate, in a timely manner, the provision of accurate and reliable information to journalists.
My two-cents worth of advice to the committee members is to ignore the prime minister’s two-month deadline. It should commence its work by examining the radical proposals of the PN and only then consider the raft of proposals of Abela.
Failing this, it could very well be that the desired new dawn for journalism will be a false dawn.