It is said that the people have the government they, or at least the majority, deserve. It can be similarly said that people will be also lumped with the journalistic media they deserve. While in the case of governments every vote counts, in the case of the media, every click or purchase or tune-in counts. People’s use of journalism makes a difference to the media landscape we live in.

Ours is a society bent on consumer rights. The customer care department is paraded as an important plus. Consumers resort to Facebook or the relevant government department to fight for their rights. They insist, for example, that the properties of the food they buy are clearly printed on the packet and that clothes have a care label.

Insisting on good quality in consumer products is all well and good but should not people insist with equal vehemence for the good quality of journalistic products they consume? Are not the products that impact so heavily on our symbolic universe very important? Are not our rights and duties as citizens as important as our rights and duties as consumers?

This is why audience ethics are as important in the consumption of journalism as journalists’ ethics are important in the production of journalism. Audience ethics, for example, militate for journalism that seeks truthful information and against the sensationalist churnalism that alienates or buttresses one’s echo chambers. A journalistic code of ethics is therefore the equivalent of a care label in textiles or other consumer products, that is, a guarantee of quality.

Consequently the discussion about the proposed new code of journalistic ethics for Maltese journalists is not only the business of journalists but also the business of audiences.

The proposed code has many good sections in its favour but I am surprised that it does not have a dedicated section on accuracy (as, for example does the Code of Practice of UK journalists) or a dedicated section on truth (confer the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists of the US).

Controversy, many times ill-informed, has erupted about the proposed code section three on harassment. It states that “journalists should not intimidate, harass or persecute people with their questions, telephone calls or cameras; they should leave private property when they are asked to do so”.

The wording is similar to section three of the UK code which is also about harassment. But there is a different context. The harassment section of the UK code was introduced following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. The excesses committed by paparazzi and tabloid journalists had fatal consequences. But the attitude of Maltese journalists is light years away from that type of behaviour.

Insisting on good quality in consumer products is all well and good but should not people insist with equal vehemence for the good quality of journalistic products they consume?

There is also an important difference. The UK code clearly states that there may be exceptions because of public interest which is defined in very wide terms. Thanks also to this proviso, complaints registered in Great Britain for breach of this section are rare and adjudications are even less common. Without the addition of the public interest proviso, the Maltese proposal can have negative effects, though, I hasten to add, that the many sinister motivations attributed to the people who drafted the proposed code are very unjust.

Besides the public interest proviso, another safeguard is needed.

When one analyses the key rulings of the UK Press Complaints Commission, one finds complaints by members of the royal family and private people. Sometimes decisions were for the complainants and sometimes for the media. I did not find complaints by politicians.

I am afraid that some of our politicians, particularly those bent on populating secretive accounts, would try to play the victim. Labour media are already preparing the way by saying that Minister Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri are being persecuted.

So, besides the public interest clause, another clause should make it clear that politicians who do not answer questions from the press about issues that have to do with their status as public figures cannot make a claim under the provisions of the harassment clause.

However, the main problem with the proposed code is a different one. It operates under the model of journalism as the objective presentation of news. There are other models of journalism. During the presidential campaign in the US many proposed the model of opinion journalism. They criticised what they described as the “false balance” or “false equivalency” model. This refers disapprovingly to the practice of journalists who, in their enthusiasm to be balanced, present each side of a debate as equally credible, even when the factual evidence is stacked heavily on one side.

The Balkan wars gave rise to the journalism of attachment as a journalism which takes sides. The local model is that of the advocacy journalism type which unfortunately on many occasions descends to the level of cheap propaganda. This is the reality of our media landscape. Consequently, there is a need for a code that takes this into consideration as advocacy journalists are ex­pected to be ethical journa­lists. What I propose is a difficult challenge but one that cannot be ignored.

The code under discussion will be discussed during an activity held in conjunction with the Speaker of the House. I will not go to this activity. The Office of the Speaker should be one of the institutions that journalists should scrutinise. Fraternising with this Office should be a no-no for an institute of journalists. (This is a comment about structures not people.)

The fact that this is happening while journalists should be working on the formulation of a code which should strengthen their independence from similar State institutions is just another sign that Maltese journalists are not conscious enough of the distinctiveness of the craft or profession we engage in.

Therefore, I prefer to give my contribution through this public forum, hoping that other journalists and the general public would do the same. Journalism is the responsibility of journalists and the public, particularly in this day and age of citizen journalism.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt

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.