Journalists' institute rebuts Depasquale report criticism

The Institute of Maltese Journalists has rebutted Judge Franco Depasquale's criticism of the manner in which the media covered the incidents at Safi Barracks last January.

The institute said any criticism connected to the negative image the country could have been given as a result of the exposure following the clash between illegal immigrants and soldiers at Safi should be directed at those responsible for ensuring that such incidents do not occur rather than at journalists.

Journalists not only have the right but are in duty bound to cover extensively incidents such as those of last January, it said. If the resultant exposure damaged the country's image it is not the journalists' fault, the institute said.

In his report, among other things, Judge Depasquale criticised the fact that pictures of the incidents were publicised and even posted on international websites such as that of the UNHCR.

The IGM pointed out that it is the journalists' duty to make public such information - including pictures.

With regard to comments by the judge regarding the insistence of journalists not to reveal the sources who tipped them off, the institute recalled that such a right is protected by law.

"We appreciate that the judge recognised this right, as he also recognised that it was thanks to the journalists' work that he managed to come to his conclusions. However, the report gives the impression that the journalists appeared to be committing some sin because they were on the scene before and while the incidents took place," the institute added.

In a democratic society, journalists have the right to have their own sources to enable them to fulfil their duties. This right was recognised by the legislator, after a lot of pressure by the IGM, through changes to the Press Act in 1996, the institute said.

"The judge makes several pejorative comments on journalists, while he lays out the facts he collected, which the IGM feels are superfluous and out of place."

The institute noted that Judge Depasquale complained that certain reports based on replies to journalists' questions were not precise. "Apart from the fact that the inquiry report does not specify which replies it is speaking about, the IGM feels that the judge could have made use of all the means given to him by law to ensure that incorrect reports are clarified", the institute added.

As for the report's claim that the media coverage may have further stoked the flames in the aftermath of the incidents, the IGM said journalists have the right to report comprehensively and factually on events that are of public interest. It was the duty of the army not to grant the detainees access to the news if the authorities feared repercussions.

"The board of inquiry's report contains several accusations of sensationalism in the media.

"The IGM maintains that when the media is reporting factually and correctly it should not be accused of sensationalism." If the facts that occurred that day were serious, it was certainly not the media's fault, the institute added.

Finally, the institute commented on the fact that the journalists were not given permission to have access to the patients at hospital and to the judge's support for the denial of access by the media to detention centres.

"The IGM points out that it is not normal practice for journalists to have access to any patient in hospital and that they also rely on statements by the police or hospital authorities issued by the Department of Information.

"The IGM wished to reaffirm its position that it does not agree with the board of inquiry report's conclusions that members of the media should not be granted access to the detention centres."