Last week there were two important developments in the divorce debate, which passed with little comment, perhaps because of August’s torpor. The first development was the publication of results of a survey on divorce commissioned by The Sunday Times. The Labour Party’s seemingly new position on divorce was the second one.

Up until now, the Labour Party did not have a position on divorce. On the other hand, its leader had one. In line with his position, Joseph Muscat is saying that the discussion should not be about whether divorce should be introduced or not but about the type of divorce that should be introduced.

Now it seems even the PL has taken a position on the subject, and this position, surprise surprise, is the same as that of Dr Muscat.

According to The Times of last Wednesday a PL spokesman said the debate should not be about a “yes” or “no” for divorce as the party considered this to be rather vague.

The spokesman reportedly said the debate should be about “the type of divorce legislation to be introduced”, adding that such a law should protect the interests of the parties involved, primarily those of children.

Does this imply that the PL has taken a position in favour of the introduction of divorce? The question begs an answer. The spokesman’s statement seems to imply that for the PL the debate about divorce is not a question of ‘if’ but of ‘how’.

I think it is only fair that the political parties take a clear position about divorce, but this should not be a position taken by stealth!

The other important development was the publication by The Sunday Times of the results of a survey on divorce which differ greatly from the results published recently by Malta Today. Considering the credibility of both newspapers, it is not difficult to conclude which is the more believable. The Sunday Times survey has important implications for the media and the Church. I will discuss the latter on another occasion.

If one reads the opinions of the regular newspaper commentators, especially those published in English, one gets the impression that most of the country is pro-divorce. One would reach the same conclusion if one reads the regular ‘news’ stories written by journalists who have an agenda more glaring than the Maltese sun in mid-August.

The Sunday Times survey shows a very simple truth: these regular commentators and journalists do not reflect Maltese reality. They only reflect their own opinions, with their wisdom or lack of it. This is something regular correspondents or agenda-driven journalists will perhaps find difficult to swallow.

However, no one familiar with the literature on the subject will be at all surprised. Several studies have shown that the opinions of journalists are many times different from those prevailing in the country.

Nevertheless, because there is a general perception that the press is almighty, many believe that what the papers say is equivalent to what the country is saying. Consequently, many who do not agree with the so-called ‘opinjonisti’ will stay silent, as they do not want to be seen to be in a minority.

The survey results published by The Sunday Times should help opinion writers and agenda-­driven journalists ingest a degree of humility – a virtue less ­common among media people than chastity is popular with prostitutes.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt