When fourth estate turns into filth estate

If I had to come across Joseph Muscat sloshed and legless in Paceville, or in a public venue, would I write a story about it? Very probably. In the equally unlikely event of my catching sight of the Prime Minister lolling around in what is coyly termed ‘a gentleman’s club’ while girls shimmied round a pole, would I find this as newsworthy? Again, probably yes.

However, I would publish an article about their misbehaviour in a heartbeat if they, or any other public official, had to be spotted in such a situation at an official function, or when they should have been representing the country.

And if the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, or a public official had to be on a tax-funded trip and ended up the worse for wear and acting in an embarrassing manner, I would definitely think the incident should be reported.

That’s because the way a public official conducts himself while in an official capacity should always be subject to scrutiny. There are no two ways about that.

While it is debatable whether the media are justified in snuffling around a public official’s private life, media scrutiny is absolutely necessary when it is focused onthe way he carries out his job. Ifthe media did not keep out a watchful eye over the way public officials conducted themselves, citizens might not get to know that their representatives were not delivering.

If the media kept the lid on public officials behaving badly, we wouldn’t find out about the way that our taxes could be funding free trips for officials acting like Charlie Sheen on a night on the town, instead of doing the work they are paid to do.

Media coverage of such undignified high jinks would be helping to further the accountability of public officials. Every right-thinking person understands that media scrutiny is a function of democracy.

So when the Sunday paper Illum carried a story about PBS chairman Joe Mizzi collapsing in an apparent state of intoxication, when he was on official business after the Eurovision Song Contest, the contentious aspect of the article was not the fact that it was carried, but the way it was written and published.

Few readers would have missed the original story. It referred to video footage showing Mizzi careening around in a manner which would make it seem that he was totally out of it. On two occasions Mizzi was shown crashing to the floor. That was after the cameras of the person/s filming him zoomed in on his name tag and lingered there. At one point a man is heard talking inMaltese. Mizzi recognised whose voice it was.

Soon after, the Illum newsroom muted the Maltese voice, ostensibly to shield the public from the mildly vulgar phrase used. When the story hit the headlines, Mizzi resigned.

He had no recollection of the event and denied drinking more than usual. There were suggestions that his drink may have been spiked. Mizzi filed a complaint before the Press Ethics Commission (PEC)* and asked the Commission to rule on whether Illum editor Julia Farrugia had breached the Code of Journalistic Ethics.

After hearing both parties and witnesses, the PEC concluded that three provisions of the Code of Ethics had been breached. Those are the ones relating to the prohibition of false or misleading or distorted reports, publishing information without verifying its veracity and accuracy, as far as it is possible, and that prohibiting character assassination.

I’d say the PEC’s decision about the first two heads are the ones which attracted most comment, and were the most misunderstood. Doesn’t the footage speak for itself, viewers ask. It’s as accurate a representation of reality as you can get, they argue, so why the ethical dilemma?

Well it would be accurate ifFarrugia had simply published the material she received, without distorting it in any manner. If this had been the case, then viewers would have been free to reach their own conclusions without any subtle prodding. But there was a degree of editing of material which changed its nature.

Although Farrugia received five separate clips from her source, she chose to have them merged together so that it appeared that they showed a continuous sequence of action.

While Joe Mizzi only fell once, the footage repeats the fall. The footage was also edited with the removal of the words spoken by the Maltese man. Had the viewers been allowed to hear the voice, perhaps they would have been able to reach their own conclusions as to the identity and motivation of the person involved.

I know it would change my take on things if I had to see footage of a politician looking worse for wear, if the camera also captured one of his critics crowing about how he had managed to set him up or nail him.

Snipping out bits and bobs of information, and presenting them in a manner which slots in with a pre-set agenda, is not being fair to viewers. The public has a right to know – but it has a right to a totality of information presented in its proper context.

The loud declarations about crusading for transparency and informing the public ring hollow when they are not accompanied by a modicum of respect for journalistic ethics and for readers. That respect includes presenting readers with information that hasn’t been doctored to suit the sorry ends of editors with preconceived agendas and an allergy to factual reporting.

• Claire Bonello is a member of the Press Ethics Commission and heard the evidence in the complaint filed by Joseph Mizzi, but withdrew from the vote regarding the breach of the Code of Ethics.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt