Richard Muscat, the former ambassador of Malta to Ireland, and his son committed a most disgusting crime according to the prevailing concept of news value. They have and should suffer more for it. If you wish to know more continue reading.

The allegation

The case is no longer in the news. The media logic that follows is: if you are not in the media then you do not exist. If one does not exist then one should not comment about him. But Richard and his family still exist.

I would like to return to them and to comment on some of the ethical aspects it raised, in particular from the perspective of media ethics.

Like other parents Mr Muscat shares, together with his wife, responsibility for the welfare of his family. A 20-year-old student claimed that Mr Muscat's son Massimo had sexually assaulted her in a park in Dublin. This must have been a great blow to the Muscat family. The police started their investigations and it was repeatedly and officially stated that at no point did Mr Muscat or someone else claim diplomatic immunity to hinder them. It seems that the lady who alleged the sexual assault was not happy with the pace of the police investigations and took a short cut to justice. She contacted the media.

The incident was reported, many times sensationally, by the Irish media.

Innuendoes and accusations galore were printed and broadcast. The incident led to the ambassador's resignation after years in the post. The Maltese media also picked up the case. As such one can understand that Mr Muscat's decision to resign was not due to the reports in the Maltese press.

Is this fair and just?

A year after  the alleged incident, the Irish Director of Public Prosecutions instructed the police not to charge the former ambassador's son because there was no case that could hold water.

So after all these months of tension, distress and pressure on the Muscat family we are in a situation where we have a family that, though relieved by the news that there is no case to answer for, is still suffering the terrible trauma. Moreover Mr Muscat is now without a job.

Is this fair and just?

How disgusting. He is innocent!

The decision of the Irish Director of Public Prosecutions must have disappointed sections of the media. They would have preferred him to have given the go-ahead. Imagine the salacious descriptions; the accusations ... Now all that has been blown with the wind. How disgusting, they must have said, he is innocent! No story in that, according to a perverted concept of news value.

Who will shoulder all or part of the responsibility for the suffering caused to the Muscat family? Were the Irish media justified in what they published and in the way they published it?

Mr Muscat had described the reports on the Irish media as sensationalism and slanderous. He also spoke of a "smear campaign". Facts show that he was correct in his assessment. Did the Irish media report the decision that there was no case with the same enthusiasm and vehemence with which they reported the allegations against Mr Muscat's son? Were there follow-ups to drum the message through?

Justice demands nothing less; but were the demands of justice respected?

Even some of the reports in the Maltese media sounded unfair. Some seemed more like an occasion to hit at Mr Muscat because of the Voice of the Mediterranean issue.

Were the media reports an exercise in fair reporting or were they an abuse of the power of the media?

Journalists and the rest of society should reflect on their actions and on the pain inflicted on the Muscat family which still lingers on due to Mr Muscat's resignation from the post of ambassador.

Apologies

Due to technical issues those who tried to post comments did not manage to do so. These have now been solved. Please post your comments on this and the previous blog, or about any other aspect of the media in Malta or overseas.