Journalists should always remain journalists whether they are working with the independent media or employed by organisations belonging to political parties. They have a duty to ask, demand answers and present the facts to their audiences. They may also interpret the facts and put them into context to help people understand the implications of things. Naturally, interpretation and comment must be distinct from facts.

For the media controlled by the political parties, the ultimate aim is to champion the cause of the parent organisation. But even within clearly-defined editorial constraints, political party journalists can still have a very important role to play. The problem crops up when their work is reduced to obtaining a sound bite or video clip that tries to denigrate the opponent without serving the common good.

One may argue that this is also a form of journalism and all is fair in love and war because this is how a large swathe of society sees partisan politics.

We beg to differ. Even in a stereotypical blue versus red, black versus white political environment that inherently thrives on confrontation there is always scope for correct behaviour. It becomes worrying when party journalists are accosted by the supporters of the opposing party, as happened outside the law courts some weeks ago to two One TV journalists. The journalists were doing their job, asking uncomfortable questions to the Opposition leader, which they have every right, indeed, are in duty bound, to do.

But it is as worrying when political parties use journalists to provoke unruly reactions from their opponents by sending them to mingle with the crowds in public manifestations or provoke political adversaries. While provocation is a slippery slope argument that may be used to stifle freedom of expression, it is the duty of political leaders to have a sense of proportion when using ‘their’ journalists as bait. Putting your opponent in a difficult and uncomfortable position is one thing. Trying to pour fuel onto incendiary situations is another. There is always scope for acting in a gentlemanly way that respects opponents.

Over the past few weeks, we have witnessed the political heat increase, partially a result of the Panama Papers leaks. The Opposition made and continues to make the best of it and the matter drags on also because of the Prime Minister’s procrastination to take decisive action.

There is nothing wrong with politicians crossing swords, at times using strong language and taking to the streets to put forward a point more forcefully. However, as President Marie Louise Coleiro Preca said in a carefully-worded opinion piece in this newspaper a couple of weeks ago, this can be done without being destructive.

“It is the norm in a democracy to criticise, to protest and to tender arguments and counter arguments. And it is the duty of our political leaders to make sure that these never escalate into dangerous situations,” the President wrote.

She then urged political leaders to realise that short-term gains achieved by “escalating tempers will not serve the purpose of our nation but will only serve the short-sightedness, once again, of the few”.

The President is right. Debacles outside the law courts, party journalists hounding ordinary citizens at political demonstrations and incendiary discourse that is out of proportion to the situation at hand may satiate the thirst of diehards, wanting machismo to prevail over rationality. But this is only a short-sighted approach that does not serve democracy well.