'Comments are sacred, facts are free'

I did not choose this heading by mistake. I know the traditional adage is exactly the opposite: facts are sacred while comments are free. However, the heading reflects two trends I see creeping into local journalism.

The first trend is the mixing together of comments and facts in such a way that it is difficult for the average reader to distinguish one from the other. The second trend treats facts so shoddily that one gets the impression that comments are preferred, or that facts are sometimes considered just as an unnecessary nuisance in the way of a good story.

Sometimes I get the distinct impression that some journalists reach a conclusion and then present the facts to fit that pre-decided conclusion. In the estimation of some, a veneer of respectability may be given to our contemporary postmodern culture with its glorification of relativism and subjectivism, though the end result is nothing but a brouhaha.

Two totally unrelated speeches on different occasions in the past couple of weeks expressed a concern similar to mine regarding the confounding of facts with comments. It seems I am not alone.

On May 8, Victor Aquilina, former editor of The Times, was awarded the Gold Award in Journalism in recognition of his contribution. In a short speech following the award, Aquilina said one of the things that worry him most about journalism in Malta today is the lumping together of facts and comments. He confessed that although he is a seasoned journalist he sometimes finds it difficult to know which is which. In such a situation, readers are not served, and truth remains an elusive quantity.

Then on May 21, Archbishop Paul Cremona practically said the same thing while addressing local journalists on the occasion of World Communications Day. The Archbishop said journalism is both about communicating facts and their interpretation, however the two roles should be executed in such a way that the reader (or viewer or listener) would know which is which. Like Aquilina, Mgr Cremona is worried that this is not happening.

The Archbishop referred to another offshoot of this trend: selective reporting, which selects from what happens or from what someone says, only those elements which buttress the predetermined conclusion.

Mgr Cremona referred to an incident where a foreign journalist did just that when reporting a speech, with the result that the speaker's content was censored and manipulated. The Archbishop was too kind with local journalists. He could have picked up myriad examples from local papers and TV stations.

I do not think that all this is mainly happening because today's journalists are less ethical or less professionally equipped than their predecessors. I think the explanation is systemic rather than individualistic.

A concept of market-driven journalism has taken over the concept of normative journalism. Our local scenario compounds the issue by adding political party-driven journalism to the market-driven one.

Journalists in such commercial or political structures can become like employees in fast food outlets. The latter cannot sell healthy foods while the former find it difficult to adequately serve the citizenship needs of their readers, listeners or viewers.

The people and the truth are among the main victims of this system.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt