Editorial

The government is bound by law - section 47 (1) of the Press Act - to "establish procedures to give representatives of the press the information which helps them fulfil their public tasks".

The code of journalistic ethics drafted by the Institute of Maltese Journalists (IGM) lays down, under the sub-title Unethical Behaviour, that: "Whenever an interview is conceded, what the interviewee has expressed shall always be reproduced in good faith. Editing shall only occur when the interviewee gives his consent to the edited version".

The above indicates that the government is bound by law to assist journalists in their work by way of disseminating information which the public would be expecting. At times such a demand for information comes from the public themselves, either through letters to the press or by directly contacting government departments/ entities. It may also happen, however, that inquisitive journalists with their ears to the ground seek information they feel the people would be interested in or have the right for.

On the other hand, the wording used in the IGM's code - "whenever an interview is conceded" - implies that one may opt not to concede an interview and the journalist must accept that. As the chairman of the Journalists' Committee, Karl Schembri, rightly noted last week, "a no comment is also an answer and should be taken as such".

The part saying that editing "shall only occur when the interviewee gives his consent to the edited version" is, regretfully, unacceptable in a democratic society where freedom of speech is accepted both de iure and de facto. As worded, the code gives the right of veto to the interviewee and portrays the interviewer as incompetent when it comes to editing. Those in the industry know that editing is a sine qua non when dealing with long, and at times boring, interviews however much the interviewee attempts to keep the questions to the point.

The UK Press Complaints' Commission's code of practice lays down that "journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit".

Under the sub-heading Harassment, it also says that journalists "must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them".

What happened last week, when the press secretary at the Office of the Prime Minister complained to both the IGM and the Journalists' Committee about an incident involving the Prime Minister and a journalist from One News, may not fall within the category highlighted above. This because the journalist was not really after an interview but rather a comment. However, you still had a journalist making a request and a politician opting not to accede to it.

Now, of course, both were well within their rights but the matter should not have gone any further. An inquisitive journalist is one thing but an imprudent one unwilling to take a "no comment" for a comment is another.

As the general election draws closer, such instances are bound to occur more frequently. It is in the interest of the journalistic profession itself and, more so, in the interest of the public that such incidents should be nipped at the bud. Thus, the Broadcasting Authority, the IGM and the Journalists' Committee should come together to issue clear guidelines to the print and electronic media. They should then proceed to naming and shaming - whether the defaulter is a journalist or a politician or anybody else - without waiting for a complaint to be filed.