Another day, another victim. This newspaper just doesn’t know when to stop. First it managed to make Konrad Mizzi squeal he was a victim of trial by media. Now it has made Keith Schembri to snarl about character assassination.
Of course, when Mizzi spoke of a trial by media, all he referred to was the newspapers doing what in any free society is considered their job: investigating stories, holding the powerful accountable.
If Mizzi’s usage of ‘trial by media’ were correct, it would be illegitimate to fact-check politicians and point out contradictions in their stories.
What about Schembri’s usage of ‘character assassination’? It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, either. If his usage were correct, it would be illegitimate to do anything more than obediently take him at his word, despite the documented discrepancies with what he has declared.
Funnily enough, though, the international press, which has paid some attention to our press coverage of Panamagate, has completely missed that Allied Newspapers and The Malta Independent stable are engaged in character assassination. It has simply assumed that the Maltese press are doing the same identical thing as the free press elsewhere: scrutinising the Panama Papers and demanding answers to simple questions.
Or is Schembri seriously asking us to believe that The Guardian, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, The New York Times and The Australian Financial Review (AFR), among several others, are character assassins too?
Hold on, come to think of it, he is asking us to believe exactly that – at least with respect to the AFR.
When the AFR’s leading financial journalist, Neil Chenoweth, wrote up what the Panama Papers said about Schembri and Mizzi, Schembri accused him of misleading with half-truths and manipulation of facts and of collusion with forces out to tarnish his reputation – in other words, Schembri accused Chenoweth of character assassination.
Since then, this newspaper has examined the e-mails Chenoweth looked at, quoted them and even published some copies. It turns out that Chenoweth’s report was fair.
Indeed, if anyone is guilty of an unjustified attack on someone’s reputation, it is Schembri himself.
Naturally, just because Schembri is himself guilty doesn’t make the press innocent. And just because Chenoweth is innocent doesn’t mean this newspaper automatically is as well.
So let’s look at the elements of character assassination, one by one, and see who’s engaging in it.
First, is the Maltese press tarnishing the reputation of Mizzi and Schembri by exaggerating what they have done?
The only place in free Europe where the Panama Papers have been downplayed by a government is Malta. Elsewhere – even in the UK, where Prime Minister David Cameron is linked indirectly because of some money he inherited years ago; even in Spain, where a minister (who has since resigned) had a past link to Panama – the government has taken a very severe stance on the Panama Papers. Especially with respect to politically exposed persons (PEPs).
On the other hand, in Malta the motives of those who want Panamagate taken seriously have been declared suspect by government apologists. A simple motive to hold the powerful accountable – shared by every other serious newspaper in the free world – has been distorted and twisted into a malicious conspiracy.
Who’s exaggerating, then?
A simple motive to hold the powerful accountable has been distorted and twisted into a malicious conspiracy
Second among the elements of character assassination are half-truths.
This newspaper has been accused of publishing half-truths – but none have ever been demonstrated. And no wonder, since it has generally stuck to citing chapter and verse, in some instances even publishing copies of documents.
(True, it has withdrawn one allegation it made. However, it was an allegation to do with a relatively marginal fact – a reporter’s mix-up of financial terminology that would have been evident to an attentive reader since the actual text was cited accurately.)
Meanwhile, Mizzi has insisted his Panama company has no bank accounts – but he then refused to answer questions about his nine unsuccessful attempts to open one.
Schembri has been shielded from shouldering political responsibility by having Prime Minister Joseph Muscat declare he is not a politician. But the strictures on financial probity cover not just elected politicians but also PEPs, which Schembri definitely is (so much so, his difficulty in opening a bank account for his Panama company stem from that).
Aren’t those facts – like others that can be cited – half-truths?
Third, character assassination involves manipulation of facts.
If this newspaper has been engaged in anything, it has certainly attempted to straighten out the facts.
We have been told that, on becoming the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Schembri resigned the directorships of his commercial companies. But the Panama Papers show him (or his financial advisor on his behalf) taking an active part in opening up new companies and preparing for new business ventures.
If that’s true, he’s still an active businessman, with potentially multiple conflicts of interest.
Schembri’s representatives have retorted: “Everyone can accept the fact that Keith Schembri has a duty and obligation, as a father and head of his family, to preserve and consolidate his and his family’s interests.”
Yes, but not while he is also supposed to be safeguarding the public interest.
Nowhere else in the world where political decision makers (which is what Schembri is) are considered public servants would this be considered acceptable. It is why, as long ago as 1960, John F. Kennedy sold all his considerable stocks on being elected President and why Cameron sold his shortly before becoming Prime Minister in 2010 – so no decision they took could be influenced by the possible impact on the value of their shares.
So, shouldn’t the actual facts of Schembri’s activity as businessman be straightened out? Just as the facts of Mizzi’s sources of funds, as declared forthe purposes of opening a bank account for his Panama company, also need tobe clarified?
Mizzi accused this newspaper of wilful misreading of his sources of income declaration, including the part where it said that he had earned over €6 million in his previous career. He said it should have been obvious that that was part of a CV that declared what he had done forhis company.
The declaration has been published. The bit dealing with his earnings was part of a sentence in which Mizzi’s financial advisor made a declaration about his client’s personal revenue.
As written, and as part of a document clearly labelled to indicate where Mizzi’s money would come from, the sentence cannot be sensibly read in any other way than how this newspaper read it.
If there is a problem, it is with how the sentence is written, not with how it has been read. To put the blame on the readers is to be cavalier with the facts.
From where I’m sitting, if anyone’s reputation has been tarnished with exaggeration, half-truths and manipulation of the facts, it’s the Maltese press, which has been doing its proper job in a democracy – a job identical to that carried out by the serious international press.
If Mizzi and Schembri think that the media’s proper job doesn’t suit them, we have to wonder if they find democracy thoroughly unsuitable as well.