I hope I am mistaken

I empathise with Labour leader Joseph Muscat and understand his annoyance at the publication of e-mails with an RTK journalist.

There is a lot that is not well in the state of newsland- Fr Joe Borg

Last April I felt the same way when the media, whose political boss is Dr Muscat, published e-mails I had sent to a few members of the anti-divorce movement.

Dr Muscat, who thinks democracy is eroded when his e-mails are published, has not told us what happens to democracy when his media publish other people’s e-mails.

The journalist, who is now in the middle of the storm, had phoned me for my comments. Today I give the same answer I gave then to the question whether I think the publication of other people’s e-mails can ever be ethically acceptable or not.

There is no doubt that such a publication constitutes a breach of people’s privacy. This is very serious, as society cannot really function unless its members can enjoy their right to privacy. Such a right can only be interfered with in exceptional circumstances and only if there is an overriding public interest.

I refrained from giving an opinion when my e-mails were published. I leave others to judge that.

It is a pity that last Tuesday, on Bondiplus, Dr Muscat decided to add insult to injury. It is not true that the e-mails published in the Labour media were leaked by any of the writers or recipients.

However, I think that in the exchange of e-mails between Dr Muscat and the RTK journalist there were elements of public interest, and it was ethically correct to publish these elements. But there were other elements which should not have been published.

The journalist in question is so small a fry that her name and photo should not have been splashed all over. It was a pity Dr Muscat named her in Parliament, thus giving the media justification for publication.

I accept that others can make a reasoned argument against their publication. It all depends on one’s concept of public interest and one’s threshold for the justification of the invasion of privacy.

On the other hand many things are happening in the local journalism that cannot be justified in any way. The harsh and aggressive language being used is appalling.

The writings of a regular correspondent in L-Orizzont on Saturday are an example of what the media should never publish. He is in a gutter of his own.

I believe we are still in time to avoid embarking on a visceral and hate-driven media campaign in the run-up to the general elections. We all should make an effort to prevent this happening.

The rot, however, goes beyond political journalism. There is a lot more that is not well in the state of newsland.

Plagiarism, the exchange of advertising for editorial material, twisting and inventing of ‘facts’, spinning beyond control, personal attacks, selective quoting, headings that do not reflect the story content, one-source stories, and the rampant mixing of facts and opinion in the news pages are just few examples.

It is also true that there are many silver linings in this cloud.

There are many good journalists who produce good stories. They are inquisitive and investigative.

Real human interest stories (in contrast to sensationalist ones) are a more regular feature than before.

People in authority are not treated with undue deference. Most journalists still have a social conscience and try to communicate the significant truths with some level of creativity.

However, in a milieu that has little to no effective self-regulation, and in a culture imbued with relativistic morality where success is gauged mainly by ratings rather than professional ethical conduct, things could get worse instead of better.

I hope I am mistaken.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt