Confidentiality is so essential for good journalism, that it is recognised at law. This principle must be defended to the hilt by anyone engaged in journalism, which is why I am writing this article today.

Protection of sources is a fundamental privilege for every journalist and a safeguard for every member of the public, without exception. The law states that journalists should not be obliged to reveal their sources of information. It also recognises the important role of the media in a democratic society.

For similar reasons we also have a Whistleblower’s Act, protecting informants and thereby encouraging the disclosure of information.

Health Minister Konrad Mizzi’s lawyer has requested a magistrate to order Daphne Caruana Galizia to reveal the source of her information in a libel case. He is arguing that, as her blog is not registered as a newspaper or broadcasting service, she does not qualify for journalistic freedoms.

Apparently, the registration of blogs is not even possible under the current structures.

Based on this technical hogwash and outdated legislation which does not take the internet into account, he hopes that Caruana Galizia will be ordered to reveal her sources.

Journalism is not just about the medium, it is an action. Whichever medium she is writing in, Caruana Galizia is a journalist and engages in journalism.

A bunch of lawyers trying to deny this in the courtroom by waving around a press register is baloney to the man in the street. The Emperor thought he had a lovely outfit, but it was obvious to all that he was wearing no clothes, whatever his legal advisers might have said to the crowd.

To suggest that Caruana Galizia is not a journalist is laughable. She is one of the most high-profile and controversial journalists in Malta. ‘Daphne’ is a household name.

As we all know, she writes newspaper columns, edits magazines, has uncovered many important news scoops and writes a blog which ranks among the most visited news websites in Malta. At one time she was on the editorial team of a newspaper.

Journalism is her profession, whether you disagree with her opinions and style or not. She works and earns an income as a journalist. The Dictionary of Maltese Biographies lists her as a journalist. Are we to believe that when she is writing news stories on a blog, as opposed to a traditional newspaper, she is not a journalist?

The less people pass on information to journalists when they notice that something is amiss, the easier it will be to get away with wrongdoing

All over the world, journalists have sometimes opted to go to prison rather than reveal their sources. Confidentiality is an indispensable rule of journalistic ethics. Caruana Galizia has likewise stated she would go to prison to not breach confidentiality and I believe her. She says she will not expose her informants, whatever it takes. Not a good outcome for anyone, including the minister.

For the law to not recognise internet-based journalism is a complete anachronism. I wrote last week that the structure of our broadcasting regulator is outdated and should be reviewed. The same applies to the Press Act, including the removal of criminal libel, which has long been called for.

The media scenario has changed radically and the way it is regulated must reflect reality. This case just shows how important it is for our legal structures to keep abreast with the changing world around us.

In the meantime, the minister should not use outdated registers to undermine journalistic ethics. Of course, he has the right to defend himself from any unfair damage to his reputation, just like anyone else, but in his position both his private and public actions can have wide implications.

When you accept a high-profile public position, this is the way it is. Nobody is forced to be a Cabinet member, but accepting the post comes with a set of privileges, as well as limitations and public scrutiny.

Why is it so important to identify the informant in this case? If anything, this person would presumably be a witness for the defendant. The last thing the prosecution should want is a witness confirming the facts of the article.

In any case, ultimately the journalist or editor of a piece is responsible for its contents, not the source. It is up to them to judge the source as trustworthy, but then it is their story. An anonymous source can really be disregarded altogether at that point.

In this case it was noted that the source was a high-ranking police officer. Perhaps someone smelt a big fish and wants to root the officer out. This might mean potential repercussions for this person, which makes it even more crucial that confidentiality is respected.

Apart from intimidating the journalist in question, this may also work to scare off potential sources. The less people pass on information to journalists when they notice that something is amiss, the easier it will be to get away with wrongdoing.

That would be a disaster. Look no further than the Gaffarena case this week. If the Times of Malta had not had its sources, we would still be none the wiser.

Stories are also uncovered by journalists working through blogs. For the same reasons as newspapers, they must protect their sources. The medium is different but the principles are exactly the same.

petracdingli@gmail.com