One would hope that the average person can recognise the differences that exist between an established media house and a social media channel such as Facebook.
But before going there it might be useful to point out what they have in common: both are providers of information; both are forums for debate; and both are available on the internet and seek to disseminate their content to as wide an audience as possible.
Yet if one word had to be chosen to separate the two, it is probably ‘control’.
Yes, media houses control the information they provide to their consumers. In a positive sense. They employ professionals whose task it is to obtain information, cross-reference, ideally ensure that all sides of an issue are covered, and then present that information to the newspaper or whatever. Crucially, they also employ editors whose job it is to decide what to accept and establish the character of a particular publication or website.
Journalism remains as vital today as ever – if not more so as consumers attempt to separate the wheat from the huge amount of chaff that pervades online forums
This may seem a bit old-fashioned to some, but it is a tried and tested formula that has served the media pretty well over the decades. What one tends to see on Facebook is a free-for-all where informed opinion is all too often drowned out by those who wallow in blissful ignorance. Or worse, those who peddle rumour, and at times, hatred. There, there is no control, and we are all the worse off for it.
However, control takes a nasty turn when it means forcing a media house to publish, or not publish, material that one deems to be either convenient or inconvenient.
People like Labour MP Joseph Sammut, who called for surveillance of the press by Parliament after the Times of Malta published an article with the heading ‘Gaffarena calls Labour MP Sammut as a witness’, need to get this into their heads.
His comments may have been greeted with derision and ridicule – Malta’s most eminent human rights expert, Giovanni Bonello, rightly said that “Parliament certainly has no function to interfere with or obstruct… scrutiny, which all democracies delegate to the free media – but they seem to reflect an unhealthy willingness by some public figures to use organs of the State to suppress journalism.
Journalists live in challenging times as media organisations across the world adapt to the changes brought about by the internet, but journalism remains as vital today as ever – if not more so as consumers attempt to separate the wheat from the huge amount of chaff that pervades online forums.
Journalists, who should be bound to act in an ethical manner, must be able to scrutinise the functions of public figures in a free and encumbered manner. Yet in Malta, there is still so much that inhibits them from doing so.
Despite promises from this government that it will reform the press law, journalists still face the prospect of prosecution – with the sanction of imprisonment, no less – for going about their daily business. And to make matters worse, many people are willing to use this against them.
They still face criminal prosecution if they fail to comply with the so-called Right of Reply, which is often used by politicians to badger newspapers. They still face the possibility of breach of privilege proceedings by Parliament, when the politicians who occupy the Chamber are allowed to say what they want because they are immune from criminal or civil action.
The rationale behind parliamentary privilege is that MPs should be able to speak without fear or favour. While a free press would not dream of asking for absolute immunity, why shouldn’t journalists be able to operate without fear or favour too?