Untruths and libel (1)

The media should be faithful to reality and deliver facts free from interpretation. It is for this reason that today I decided to write about untruths.

Untruths also come in doses and the readers might be amazed at what a large range of shades exists between a truth and an untruth. This shows that life is not just a mathematical game and some truths may be more true than others while some untruths may vary from genuine mistakes to intentional, pre-meditated and timely fabrications.

In some cases, which ended up in libel suits, politicians were attacked personally; others simply resulted from a misinterpretation of facts or misinformation by the person eventually found guilty of libel (who might, in turn, have been wrongly fed by informers).

One advantage of libel is the effect of "delayed confirmation". Once false information is out in the media it is out instantly. It is up to the speaker to choose the time when this untruth is aired and reaches the public. However, it would take at least two years for that untruth to be confirmed as such and some cases have even taken as long as 11 years to be concluded. So much could change in the political scene during such a long time. It is for this reason that some untruths could form part of a party's political agenda, in order to gain the sympathy of voters.

Although politicians' speeches and political news bulletins are full of accusations, they do appear to be representing the truth. Given the manner in which the media of both parties are scrutinised, one would think that whatever is libelous would end up in court. So, it would be surprising to learn that so few libel cases are filed, especially in view of the multitude of statements and items that are disseminated by both the electronic and the printed media.

Although Super One and Net TV do sometimes give us different news and interpretation they know well enough where the limit lies if they are not to be sued for libel. And, following the principle of ubi lex voluit lex dixit - what the law wants to say it says and what it doesn't want to say it doesn't - libel cases throw a light on the veracity of news as much as they highlight its falsehood.

In the case of the two main political parties - the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party - the libel cases can be instituted both in their regard as a party but also against their media and against their members of Parliament/ministers personally. The information contained in this article deals with cases filed since 1992 and decided to date (those still undecided are indicated as such).

The first point to note is that the party in government - the PN - has had 10 cases filed against it. It has also lost 10. The MLP has had 17 cases filed against it and lost 13. This means the PN has won none of the cases filed against it whereas the MLP won four.

At first glance, one could conclude that some cases are filed merely for publicity purposes. This is the more substantiated by the fact that in some cases attendance for sittings is rare.

According to calculations based on decided cases, libel cost the PN (including party, media and activists' personal cases) Lm14,800 and it cost the MLP (party, media and activists) Lm16,225 since 1992.

Damages are usually liquidated according to the gravity of the case and, therefore, one can say that the PN comes forth as the party that has been the biggest offender with the "biggest" untruths whereas the MLP seems to specialise in "small" untruths or inaccuracies. The only real exception with regard to the MLP is the "cars case" where government spending on ministerial cars was wrongly published - a piece of misinformation the MLP's media had to pay Lm6,500 for.

A total of Lm2,750 libel damages were paid by MLP critics not forming part of the PN. It must be pointed out that PN ministers and MPs never filed any libel suits against The Times, The Malta Independent or Malta Today in the period under review. All libels against these papers came from MLP activists.

The non-political paper which paid the highest sum in libel damages to MLP activists was The Malta Independent.

It-Torca, the General Workers' Union's weekly, is the only newspaper not to have had any libel cases filed against it by a politician since 1992.

This seems to imply that it is the newspaper which gives the most accurate information and which has the most well-founded arguments.

TVM too had no libel cases filed against it and the same applies to most private radio stations.

On the other hand, not even dead people are spared from insult in this country. The heirs of Sir Paul Boffa, a former Labour leader, won a libel case this year in a lawsuit filed in 1994.

In the next article more details will be given with regard to the merits of libel cases lost and won by political parties and party leaders. GWU cases will also be discussed. In drawing up this article over 63 decided libel cases and some still undecided were consulted. Every effort was made to be as accurate as possible although space restrictions do not allow me to go into detail.

I wish readers a happy and a prosperous New Year!