Who is a journalist? A question that until now was largely one to be debated in media circles could soon have much wider, and very important legal implications.
In March, a court will decide whether columnist and blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia is entitled to a journalist’s legal right to protect the anonymity of her sources.
Writing in the Times of Malta, columnist and anthropologist Ranier Fsadni said: “Should [the court] decide that the law does not offer the protection of confidentiality for blogs and (by extension) the social media, the repercussions will be wide and deep. None will be untouched.”
The case concerns a libel suit against Ms Caruana Galizia on the basis of allegations of a relationship between Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi and his communications coordinator Lyndsey Gambin. The demand for her to reveal her source is based on the fact that Ms Caruana Galizia’s blog is not registered as a news website.
Newspaper editors, however, cautioned against too rigid a view on what makes someone a journalist – and qualifies them for protection – especially in an age when news sometimes bypasses traditional media altogether.
What the court should be determining is whether a person’s reputation has been vilified by allegations that cannot be proven
EU freedom of expression guidelines, in fact, state that efforts to protect journalists should not be limited to those formally recognised as such, but should also cover others such as “citizen journalists” and bloggers.
“A journalist is someone who consistently provides information or comment, on any forum,” The Sunday Times of Malta editor Steve Mallia said.
“The definition is changing: the internet has created a different forum, but people remain journalists; they’re just expressing it in different ways.”
Mr Mallia noted, however, that anyone defining themselves as such would have to consider not just the rights, but the responsibilities of the role.
“If you present yourself as a journalist on a website, you are subject to the same laws as people in a recognised newspaper,” he said. “You have to subscribe to the same ethical standards: allowing people to reply and issuing corrections, for example.”
Currently, the only system in Malta through which journalists can be formally recognised is a press card issued by the government, which is technically only used to ensure admission to government events.
Malta Today executive editor Matthew Vella said that although registration put a legal face to journalistic entities, it should matter little in terms of determining rights and obligations – as long as someone was actively working as a journalist and within the reach of the law.
“The State should stop issuing press cards to people who do not earn a living, whether full-time or part-time, from journalism, and instead have a self-regulated press body issue a recognised press card,” he said.
Non-disclosure of sources, according to Mr Vella, was essential to the work of all journalists – and overriding it in the name of the public’s interest to identify sources could endanger whistleblowers and witnesses.
“The law courts have enough case law to determine when non-disclosure is necessary and how to determine who is a journalist or not – irrespective of quality and standards,” he said.
“In defamation suits, I don’t see the necessity or wisdom of this request. What the court should be determining is whether a person’s reputation has been vilified by allegations that cannot be proven.”
Stefano Filletti, legal advisor to the Institute of Maltese Journalists, said that the Press Act did not seek to provide any formal definition of a journalist or distinguish between different categories in assigning rights.
Registration, he added, was solely limited in the law to newspapers so could not be used to determine whether someone was a journalist.
While not commenting on the specifics of the case itself, Dr Filletti noted that the law extended protection to any author of “printed matter”.
This, he said, was defined as including any “means whereby words or visual images may be heard, perceived or reproduced” – which would seem to include online media.
“The law is wide enough to be inclusive, and in being wide enough, it’s difficult to draw clear lines of demarcation,” Dr Filletti said. “But having a grey area is not necessarily a bad thing: the Press Act is trying to keep this flexibility alive.”