Editorial

There evidently are major divergences between the way the government says or signals it wants to handle information, what the Prime Minister does and/or says about it and how one particular minister at least - although other members of the Cabinet cannot be excluded - deals with the matter on the ground.

Freedom of expression and freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference are rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Press Act lays down that the government shall, save in given instances, establish procedures to give representatives of the media the information that helps them fulfil their public tasks. It is unlawful for the government to issue general instructions that prohibit the giving of information to any newspaper or licensed broadcasting service holding a particular view or to any specified newspaper or licensed broadcasting service.

In other words, the government is bound by law to dish out information, help the media in obtaining the information they require and do nothing that would hamper journalists in their work. Of course, journalists have obligations too, as listed in the Code of Ethics drawn up by the Institute of Maltese Journalists.

Just hours after The Times reported that questions sent to the Infrastructure Ministry on the new electricity rates were released to all media, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi told an event marking the ninth anniversary of the Tumas Fenech Foundation for Journalism Studies that journalism and politics were two ways of serving individuals and society and that this was a point of convergence for both sides to work at the service of people.

He went further: "I believe that politicians would be respecting journalists and truly acknowledging the important role journalists play in Maltese society when they help in the building of an environment and (allow) space where it becomes easier to practise professional and ethical journalism" (translated from Maltese).

The Infrastructure Ministry's decision cannot be deemed as somehow helping journalists in their work. It damages the trust between the government and journalists and defeats the whole purpose of a medium taking individual initiatives. Yet, even when the Office of the Prime Minister told The Sunday Times that what had happened was not government policy, the ministry persisted in its decision, justifying it by saying that "the practice of replying to questions from the press in writing has led to selective and purposely contradictory reporting that has had the result, intended or otherwise, of making the ministry look secretive, inconsistent or even economical with the truth".

The ministry could have easily issued a statement to set the record straight. In addition, it could have demanded a right of reply under the provisions of the Press Act, filed a formal complaint to the Press Ethics Commission and/or, if need be, even taken the matter to court.

This is now a public affair and it must therefore be handled and decided upon in public. The ministry or, rather, the minister, because the buck stops at his desk, must now either declare he will stick to his policy or formally withdraw it. On the other hand, the Prime Minister could intervene and order the ministry/minister to stick to government policy, which, really, Dr Gonzi has no option but to do if he wants to show he and nobody else is in command.