Changing the media landscape

The media report on various topics, but rarely do they get the opportunity to deal with subjects that affect them directly. With this in mind, it is most welcome that issues such as libel and the ban on political reportage in the two days preceding an election were discussed by a parliamentary committee.

Libel in Malta is in a terrible state for several reasons. One, it is overly restrictive: the media are not covered, for example, if a politician makes a potentially libellous statement during an interview (though they are protected if he does so in Parliament).

Two, the courts have adopted too literal an approach to legislation on defamation – though there have been welcome signs recently, perhaps thanks to a recent European Court of Human Rights decision involving our sister paper, that judicial attitudes are changing.

Three, the notion of criminal libel is both draconian and archaic as well as being a bar to freedom of expression that is in the public interest.

It is most welcome that the committee which contains Franco Debono, José Herrera and Francis Zammit Dimech all seemed to be in agreement that criminal libel should be removed from the statute books.

And coupled with improved libel legislation that would better serve the public as well as the press, the suggestion made by Dr Debono – that the ceiling for civil damages be raised for media which are found to have libelled an individual – should indeed attract support from all responsible media houses as long as the sums reflect local financial realities.

Libel is, to an extent, an occupational hazard for journalists since with the constraints of deadlines mistakes do happen. However, there is no excuse for ill-prepared or badly motivated reporting and it should be punished by the courts through damages.

It is also an unfortunate fact that certain journalists in Malta (writing in newspapers as well as on the internet) have chosen to use the space they have to conduct character assassination campaigns against individuals – even going, quite unacceptably, into people’s personal lives while at the same time pontificating about what makes good journalism. Ideally, this would also be regulated.

Quite predictably, we could not agree with the committee more that it is high time the current reporting restrictions at election time are lifted. Though it makes sense to retain certain rules for actual polling day, as The Sunday Times has pointed out before the blanket ban of political reportage is no longer practicable or indeed enforceable with the advent of the internet. This places more traditional media at an unfair disadvantage which must be remedied before the next general election.

There are, of course, issues upon which we would disagree with the committee. One would hope, for example, that it would not continue to push for the concept of a statutory right to reply as it stands. The current criminal sanction is patently unacceptable but so is the manner in which the legislation is drafted – which is draconian and ambiguous.

For example, a magistrate may interpret the law in its current form to enable an individual to reply separately to every reference to him on the same subject, which is plainly ridiculous.

We would therefore encourage the committee to consult individuals who work in journalism – not just the Malta Institute of Journalists, which is not representative of the sector – before it makes its final recommendations if new legislation is to be embraced by the people who will have to operate within it.