Evarist Bartolo, Education Minister
As someone who has worked in journalism, in different roles, for the past 30 years I have seen this job evolve and change over time. Back then, there was still the usual pressure to go to print and to broadcast in time. But writing an article or a report had more weight, based on its veracity rather than impact. There was time to verify and to analyse. Clicks are the currency nowadays. Impact and reach are the measurements and viral is the promised land.
I think that ultimately it boils down to balance and editorial responsibility. In the rush for uploading content, it would be superfluous if the story is not factual – the medium will lose credibility in the long term. The main argument, and its importance is further increased by the advent of social media, is that we must make sure society thinks and reasons more than ever in a critical way. Filter bubbles are even worse – one cannot analyse critically if they are exposed to only one point of view. Some of the senseless hatred towards particular minority groups may actually stem from this social media phenomenon.
Which is why it’s very important that from an early age we teach children to analyse facts and think in a critical manner and where they source news. These are skills which will be vital when social media takes information gathering into the grey zone. These are the policies that we as politicians and educators should focus on.
The media revolves very much around its audience. During university lectures, I was sometimes asked why outlets such as Fox News, The National Enquirer or The Sun are not ‘controlled’ and their sensationalism brought into check by legal means. My explanation was that ‘controlling’ is a very dangerous path for a democracy to take and ultimately, the true reflection of those outlets is that there is a huge audience for them. Elevate that audience to a better and higher standard, and the content in that format will become obsolete.
‘Controlling’ is a very dangerous path for a democracy to take
In Malta, political polarisation means media influence is often seen and used as a weapon. Today more than ever – and perhaps it all has gone overboard. It’s a sad state of affairs. All this is not exclusive to Malta as some of the debates we are having about political gossip blogs today happened 20 years ago in the US with Matt Drudge.
There is nothing wrong in a paper having a green agenda or even a political slant, but what takes place in Malta is what happens when partisan politics absorbs and consumes basic journalistic standards. You have to subtract what’s written with the injected agenda and, maybe, you’ll be close to the true picture.
These things have always been there, but usually limited to places you’d expect. Today that has changed. Political jibes and character assassination are often preferred over objectivity and fair reporting, leading to a media landscape which, as Eurostat research has shown, favours very little credibility from the public. No wonder in Malta we have the second highest rate in Europe of people who say they never read a newspaper, and only 32 per cent trust the written press.
The government has produced proposals to remove criminal libel – a very important step. It’s ultimately about creating an environment where the media is free to write on whatever and whoever it likes, but people have the right to suitable redress when appropriate. We certainly do not have any intention to choke freedom of expression or social media commentary. The mediation element and the removal of garnishee orders were also positive and well-received. We’ve spoken to stakeholders and the dialogue will continue in the coming days.
Of course, even the media Act proposals attracted a bandwagon of partisan pseudo-freedom fighters who have branded us an Orwellian mob.
Lest they have more sleepless nights, I can assure them that this government will do what it always has done, and that is listen to genuine people and reasoned argument. I can also reassure them that, unlike our predecessors, we have no intention of allowing university students to face jail time over a publication under our watch.
Clyde Puli, Nationalist Party spokesman on social dialogue
We want safeguards, the kind we naively thought were unnecessary. Moreover, we want these safeguards to apply within the universality of the law. This effectively means we are wholeheartedly against garnishee orders in libel cases against journalists and media houses, whether these involve the Times of Malta, One News or others.
Unlike the present Cabinet ministers who indicate their approval for a government Bill that removes garnishee orders for libel cases but still insist on the unlimited freezing of assets when they feel victimised, we believe in holistic protection to those who are after all carrying out their duty and responsibility in a democratic, free society.
When Labour’s One TV fabricated a story about Beppe Fenech Adami regarding works he had carried out in his home, they were given the right to a fair trial including the right to present their case and produce evidence. This despite the fact that, from the onset, it was obvious that the whole story was based on lies and complete non-issues, in the hope that the Panama Papers scandal would no longer make it to the front page of practically every newspaper. This was proven beyond any doubt when the One News editor never even bothered showing up for court hearings he himself instigated.
Together with Jason Azzopardi and David Agius, I presented a motion to definitely consign this tactic to the authoritarian rubbish bin of history, where it belongs. Credit must go to the Opposition for shaking awake the Minister of Justice who, months after the first reading of the Media and Defamation Bill, made public the actual text of the Bill in a hastily-called press conference.
The Bill includes improvements but they are all tainted
The Bill includes improvements but they are all tainted. Criminal libel and garnishee orders for libel cases will go but pending cases before the courts will continue and assets already frozen will remain so, despite the government indicating it is ‘against’ these. It comes as absolutely no surprise or coincidence that pending cases wherein the freezing of assets will continue to stand have as defendants numerous government critics.
Worst of all, the requirement that all existing or potential editors register with a press registrar will be extended to all online news. The current provision is already an anachronism: there are less than a dozen newspapers published and our country’s size hardly allows for underground printing presses churning out news of any kind. To this anachronism, the Bill’s expanded definition includes online media where a Facebook page can constitute a “news service”.
The government’s intention on this is clear: to dissuade and discourage any individuals or organisations from moving forward with any plans to enter the media circle, often borne from a sense of duty and moral responsibility, and hit back at government lies and actions. Having to go through the process of registering their details and information will work wonders for Joseph Muscat’s intention to clamp down on critics.
The Justice Minister might have thought he could lie back and enjoy the accolades for his Bill. The reaction he got so far, including from the University’s head of the Media and Communications Department and the Malta IT Law Association, shocked him into calling another press conference and issuing a press release trying to give assurances. Assurances he gave despite none being reflected in the legislation before the House.
Despite such fake assurances, when any case is brought before a court of law, it is the law that will prevail and not the poetic and sugar-coated words of the minister. Therefore, it goes without saying that this discrepancy is being used only to calm down very well-founded fears that the legislation is irregular and absolute hogwash.
One thing is sure. Even if you’re on the wrong side of the law, when you repost a news item on your online profile, in between family photos and personal opinions, the government will not prosecute. We now know it well enough to realise that what it intends to do is permanently hang the threat of prosecution over our heads.
The days of ransacking printing presses is long over – the new tactic is to sidestep that necessity altogether by instilling a sense of fear of the same institution whose duty is to obliterate this in the first place.