Who or what is a journalist? It may seem like an obvious question, with an even more obvious answer, but in the modern age this question has become ever more pressing since journalists ‘benefit’ from limited forms of protection that allows them to perform their role.
On March 17, a magistrate hearing a libel suit will decide whether Daphne Caruana Galizia is entitled to protect her sources in terms of the Press Act; a decision that will determine whether she will be obliged to reveal a source who tipped her off about what she claimed was an intimate embrace between Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi and his communications coordinator.
The implications of such a decision will have huge ramifications on journalism in the country.
In the libel suit, Ms Caruana Galizia is refusing to reveal her sources, arguing that, as a journalist, she has the right to protect their confidentiality. When asked whether her blog was registered under the Press Act, she said it could not.
Lawyer Pawlu Lia, appearing for Dr Mizzi, argued in court that consequently she did not benefit from the protection granted to journalists because her blog was not a news website but a site she used to write “about people”.
So the point at issue is what constitutes a journalist. Defining journalists in the past was a more straightforward affair as they were automatically linked to a traditional media organisation, but the emergence of new media has blurred the lines – is journalism today an activity or a profession?
Nowadays, anybody can become a ‘journalist’. Indeed, we speak of citizen journalism. But does this mean the term should apply to all those engaging in journalistic-like activity, such as snapping a picture at a crime scene or simply creating a blog site?
In 2001, an unpublished author working on a book about a murder in Houston in the US was jailed for 168 days for not revealing the identities of the sources of her information. In this case, the US Department of Justice chose not to get involved because, according to its definition, “an unpublished author is not a journalist”.
The author was steadfast in her belief of the “public’s right to a free and independent press”. Her incarceration underscores a problem journalists have faced for decades: give up your source or risk jail.
Ms Caruana Galizia has publicly stated on her blog she would rather go to prison than reveal a source.
Without wading into the debate of whether one agrees with her blog, the issue at stake concerns a so-called privilege without which the life of journalists would become so much more difficult, and exposing wrongdoing doubly hard.
In Malta there is no official body that regulates journalism. The press card, the only form of professional identification held by a journalist, is issued by the government’s Department of Information, which is unusual in the democratic world, while the Institute of Maltese Journalists does not provide its own accreditation.
Ms Caruana Galizia enters several posts a day on her blog, which is a mix of news and very strong opinion. However much one may despise the contents, it is difficult to reach any conclusion other than that this is a form of journalism.
The Press Act says: “No court shall require any person in Article 23 [the author, the editor or the publisher] to disclose… the source of information… unless such disclosure is in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety.” In the minister’s case against Ms Caruana Galizia, neither applies.
However, a distinction should be drawn between activists with an agenda and journalists, and, to benefit from the privilege of non-disclosure, journalists should be compelled to subscribe to a set of ethical standards – with rights come responsibilities. The law must therefore be updated.
Bearing in mind these provisos, protection should be extended to all forms of journalism and across all platforms. The forms of disseminating reportage might have changed in recent years but journalism has not.