A member of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development complains that he was misreported by a section of the media and the social partners’ response was to close the doors to the media.

For some time, reporters were allowed to cover the first part of meetings, which was already bad enough. But the council has now decided against this too, denying the media the opportunity of getting a feel of what is going on. The sooner it reconsiders its decision, the better it will be not just for its image but, more importantly, for the link it should have with the public.

When people today can watch live parliamentary sittings on TV, it makes no sense for an organisation such as the MCESD to close the doors to journalists. The social dialogue it is so keen to develop should not just be with the government but also with the country at large in whose interest it is supposed to be working.

The relevant component parts that make up the council ought to constantly feel the pulse of the country and one of the best ways to do this is to keep up a meaningful dialogue with the media. More than allowing the press to attend part of a meeting, the council ought to be brave enough and open its doors wide open to journalists.

By being allowed able to be present throughout the whole meeting, the media will be in a position to better scrutinise the work it is doing and the contribution the social partners are making. If, as it can very well happen every now and then, someone is misreported, the way to go about it is to ensure such reports are corrected.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives does not bar the press from reporting Parliament if a correspondent misreports an MP. What happens is that the medium in question is asked to carry a correction and the matter stops there, unless there is malice. The MCESD chairman should do the same.

Instead of banning the media, the MCESD ought to find ways of establishing a working link with it. No subject ought to be out of bounds to the media. This requires a change of attitude on the part of the council members who ought to be ready to discuss what they have to say at the council openly, just as MPs do in Parliament.

Contrary to what some, including members themselves, might think, this can only be of benefit to the council. Transparency and accountability go hand in hand and, in today’s world, the tendency is to go towards greater, not less, transparency. Very often in the past, the council was considered as just a talking shop.

There is much value in having such a representative council as the MCESD. However, its effectiveness will be enhanced even further if it ensures the widest possible cross-fertilisation of ideas. Rather than having a council representative summarising a council discussion to the press after a meeting, the media ought to follow the proceedings, listening to all that is being said.

The MCESD is not the ordinarycommittee of an organisation but a catalyst between the social partners and the government.

It is therefore essential for the public to learn of what it is taking place so that it can judge for itself the effectiveness of the MCESD’s work.

Since economic and social development are matters that are of directconcern to each and every citizen,the MCESD ought to be open topublic scrutiny.

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.