This newspaper was the first to prudently but professionally break the story about the pending court case against Fr Charles Fenech, who stands accused of sexually abusing a vulnerable person. This report was followed by other newspapers and other media which sometimes preferred to give a sensationalist bend.

The accusations against him are very serious, even horrible. This piece is not intentioned to diminish in any way or manner the seriousness of what is alleged.

It is not meant to defend Fenech in any way as I have no brief or interest to do so. But it interests me to analyse whether its reportage in the media is or is not another example of the state of unbearable shambles of public discourse in Malta.

Many media outlets lost their sense of proportion. I believe that journalistically and objectively the disgraceful revelations of the mass exploitation of foreign workers at the Chinese-owned company, Leisure Clothing, should have been given much more importance by our media outlets than the allegations against Fenech. The sense of proportion was lost in the enormous hullabaloo that ensued on Facebook. The comments of genuinely concerned people were mixed with comments of those grossly misinformed about the story. Naked hatred of the Church oscillated with genuine concern for it. This is to be expected as the allegations are serious enough for the police to press criminal charges.

Reneging on celibacy vows is as morally reprehensible as reneging on marriage vows, but both are only criminally relevant if they involve violence or minors or lack of consent resulting from vulnerability, as this case is alleged to be.

I was tempted to add that the accu­sations are serious enough that one of the Church’s response teams has taken more than eight years to investigate the case. But this res­ponse team cannot be taken seriously, more so after the Apostolic Administrator Charles Scicluna, and the president of the Maltese Episcopal Conference Mario Grech publicly expressed their indignation at its scandalous procrastination.

The chair’s resignation and a public apology are the only honourable options. Otherwise, the bishops should publicly thank the chairman for his services and choose another one, for the good of the Church, for the sake of their own credibility and for the sake of the other members of the response team who had clearly made their discontent clear to the authorities in past years.

People were further angered be­cause 18 months after the charges against Fenech were filed, court proceedings have not started as medical certificates were presented on three occasions. Scicluna rightly expressed his anger at this course of action chosen by the accused and at the fact that he only became aware of the criminal case from the newspapers.

This newspaper had all the names and the basic facts about the case. It, however, opted for prudent coverage throughout. It struck the right balance between the people’s right to know and that person’s privacy. It stated the basic accusations without naming names or any scurrilous details. The report gave all that one needs to know to satisfy the public’s right for information but there was no concession to morbid curiosity.

Striking a balance between these two important rights – information and privacy – is not easy. This balance moves here or there, for example, depending on the information that one possesses at the time and the way of evaluating it. A Kantian evaluation can lead on to a different conclusion from a utilitarian one. Both approaches can lead to an ethical decision.

However, journalists whose main loyalty is increased sales can reach an ethically justifiable decision, if they do, only by coincidence. The urge to beat the competition for the scoop is a good professional value, but in itself it hardly ever provides a good basis for an ethical decision.

I do suspect that the desire to out-do others fuelled the media frenzy.

As a result of this frenzy, Fenech’s presumption of innocence was neglected by most. Someone has just set up a Facebook group campaigning to withdraw the Medal for the Service of the Republic given to Fenech. Similarly, newspapers do not really respect a person’s presumption of innocence if they report all sorts of sordid details while hiding behind the fig leaf cover provided by the word ‘allegation’.

This newspaper struck the right balance between the people’s right to know and that person’s privacy

There is a very important role for investigative journalism. It is exercised to uncover what others, sometimes the authorities, want to cover or to reveal what they were not able to uncover. The present coverage of the allegations against Fenech is not a case of investigative journalism. Some people went to newspapers with loads of information.

This was information already in the hands of the police and information that was presented or was to be presented in court as part of the case against Fenech. The media, unlike the case of Leisure Clothing, had to carry out no investigation. They did not discover new things, as the material of the story was right there on a platter.

Had there been a realistic fear that the person concerned would have continued to evade justice by continually producing medical certificates, the media could have been justified to name the person before he appeared in court.

There was no such fear, as according to one media report, the magistrate warned Fenech’s law­yers that if he did not show up for the next session he would issue a bench warrant for his arrest.

There were those who wanted a media trial before the court trial, perhaps because the latter could be held in camera, and so the sordid details would not reach the public. There are those who are not after justice but after revenge. Some media houses played ball by pandering to prurient curiosity, instead of satisfying people’s legitimate right for information.

How else can one explain the reference to certain types of sexual activity and intimate behaviour? What do such references add to the substance of the matter?

Just saying one could have written much more spicy descriptions is no defence at all. Journalists should be the champions of relevant facts. In the words of Will McAvoy, in The Newsroom “we are not waiters in a restaurant serving you the stories you asked for just the way you like them prepared”.

I steal a legendary line from the great film Network: “I am mad as hell, and I am not going to take this anymore!” We can all lean out of our windows and shout it out, or rather, in this age of technology, pound it on our keyboards. But as long as public discourse in Malta remains in its current unbearable shambles, then I shall remain mad as hell and thump on my keyboard as often as needed to persuade others to do the same.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt

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.