BBC presenter Jeremy Paxman once told The Guardian that the relationship between journalists and politicians should give evidence of a similar level of respect present in the relationship between a dog and a lamp-post.

The practice of parties choosing who to send on TV programmes has gone wrong and has now developed into a way of manipulating both audiences and journalists- Fr Joe Borg

Many politicians agree with Paxman, though the comparisons would tend to be somewhat different. In Paxman’s view the journalist is the dog while in the view of some politicians the figure of the lamp-post should fit the journalist.

I tend to disagree with both attitudes. Journalists and politicians have important, though differing roles to play in society. Mutual respect – more than one way deference, arrogance or cynical contempt – should characterise their relationship.

There are arrogant journalists. I know of a high-placed official within a semi-government organisation who received a call on Friday at 5 p.m. asking for detailed information about an incident. The official informed the journalist that he was chairing a seminar which would last till 8 p.m. He would, however, go to his office first thing on Saturday to pick up the required information.

The journalist went ahead regardless and printed the story saying that the official did not give the required information on time. The official went to his office (not realising the story had been published), checked the information and phoned the journalist. The answer was: “How do you dare phone me on Saturday at 10 a.m. I am still asleep.” Imagine how all hell would have broken loose had a politician given that kind of answer!

The reason for the hasty publication was that the newspaper got wind that a competing paper would publish the story on Sunday! The criterion was not journalistic nor was it motivated by public interest. It was purely commercial.

Arrogant politicians exist as well; and like empty vessels they make most sound. I will, today, not write about individuals but I will comment on a practice adopted in recent years – whereby a producer or presenter leaves it up to political parties to decide who should participate in a discussion/talk show programme. I am not aware whether it is also done with other institutions such as the Church and the unions.

I confess to some responsibility for this practice since I did not fight it hard enough when I was chairman of the PBS Editorial Board. Its origin was well-intentioned and at that time it was a kind of a quid pro quo arrangement which was ethically valid within the parameters of its practice at that time.

Unfortunately, the well-intentioned working arrangement has morphed into a sort of presumed divine right that political parties are abrogating to themselves. It is a pity there are journalists who accept this practice as if it represents the way things should be. The working arrangement has gone wrong and it has now developed into a way of manipulating both audiences and journalists.

Political parties are deciding who we should listen to and what image of their party they should present us with. The parties are deciding who to hide and who to expose. They can legitimately do this during programmes organised by the Broadcasting Authority or during their propaganda events.

Journalistic programmes, on the other hand, belong to journalists who are there to serve audiences. Journalists are duty-bound to present audiences with the whole gamut of the parties’ menu of candidates, warts and all. Producers and presenters should consequently be the ones to choose their guests.

I am not against a give-and-take attitude under special circumstances or in common sense situations. But I definitively consider as unethical the abdication on the part of journalists of their duty to choose their guests.

This unethical practice means that journalists just present us with only people whom the parties approve. Such presenters and producers are abandoning their journalistic role to take over the role of spin doctors.

Who will take concrete steps to stop the charade of this droit du seigneur? Will it be the Broadcasting Authority? The authority’s guidelines stipulate that if a guest refuses to participate the producer can go on with the programme without this guest. The interpretation of this guideline should be expanded to include the situation I am writing about.

This should be another occasion for the authority to give the lie to those who say it defends the interests of political parties more than the interests of the public and journalists.

But the onus is on the journalists themselves. They should refuse to be treated as lamp-posts.

* * *

Many things have been written about the resignation of Richard Cachia Caruana from his post of Malta’s Permanent Representative at the European Union. The reasons produced in Parliament to justify the motion of censure would make a sieve look like a solidified surface.

Cachia Caruana was working full-time and half-representing us in EU institutions while on the side he served as a Nationalist Party strategist. I am not privy to his plans for the near or distant future. But what will happen if he now decides to dedicate himself full-time-and-half to the role of PN strategist and electoral campaign manager? Pyrrhic victories, anyone?

* * *

Driving on Malta’s roads this evening will be very safe till 10.30 p.m. or perhaps 11 p.m., if extra time will be needed to find a winner. After that the streets will be a tad noisy and jammed.

With the final whistle of the Italy vs England match all hell (or should I say heaven depending on which side wins) will break loose.

The celebrations or the recriminations will go on in places of work Monday morning. It will not be a very productive day!

Some will say it is shameful that we dedicate such energy to support two foreign teams. In my opinion such folks are boring stuck-ups.

I say that such celebration is sheer fun. It is indefensible on several fronts. But who cares? It is just another occasion to be jolly. What’s wrong with that?

Let the fun begin, preferably after England’s victory.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.