Last Sunday (05,07,09), in my regular column in The Sunday Times, I discussed the coverage (or lack of coverage) given to the celebrations making the conclusion of the Pauline Year. A quick search in the archive of The Times will give you more details about what I wrote.

All the papers gave very poor coverage and the long coverage given by The Times was particularly one sided and superficial. The "meeting" of the statutes of St Paul and St Publius - a great mistake of the organisers that proved to be a great alienation - was the highlight of the reports or the focus of the photographs while the homily by the Papal Legate and the speech of the Archbishop were ignored.

In fairness, timesofmalta.com gave extensive coverage of the homily of the Papal legate, thus giving its readers a comprehensive report about what really took place on the occasion.

I tried not to rush to conclusions so last Sunday I asked whether the press were given an embargoed copy of the homily and whether the significance of the occasion was communicated to them. I am informed that this was done. Fr Charles Tabone OP and Kevin Papagiourcopulo (a new face to the Curia press relations office but not new to TVM viewers) are doing their best to upgrade the public relations services of the Church. They have the task of building a proactive, creative and professional Communications Office; a tough but much needed initiative. I wish them well.

Was the poor coverage given by the papers a sign of an anti-Church agenda by the media? I do not think that the Maltese media have such an agenda although it could be that some individuals within the media establishment do have such an agenda. The explanation lies elsewhere.

A bug called market driven journalism

There is another possible explanation. There are signs of a greater tabloidization of our media. There is a tendency due to which format is now being given more importance than content; soft news given greater prominence than hard news.

The photo is given more prominence that the story even when it is not an artistic photo which makes the story. We tend to be moving away from a normative type of journalism towards a market driven one. This tendency is evidenced in many countries and, like Swine Flu, it reached us after making havoc in other countries. This bug leaves myriad negative effects on journalism.

There is another related bug that worries those who care about high journalistic standards. Some journalists are taking the centre stage and behave in such a way as if they are more than the stories that they cover: they strive to become the story. This too is an imported bug. Facts and opinions intertwine and the difference between them is sometimes difficult to spot. Some journalists believe that they are the owners of people's right to know when in fact they are and should behave like its servants.

Kibritilhom rashom

There are some journalists who, as we say in Maltese, rashom kibritilhom. Let me give you some examples.

• I was discussing an assignment with a student who happens to be a budding journalist. I made a number of comments. At one point, he looked me straight into my eyes and told me: I know what I am writing because I have experience in journalism. For the past six months I was working part time with ****." To which I quipped: "Pardon me my friend. I do not have such a vast experience; so I'll be silent." The look on his face showed satisfaction.

• Recently I accessed my email in-box at noon. Lectures had been cancelled and so I earned the luxury of a couple of "free" extra hours. I discovered that a journalist had sent me some questions at 11.00am and was expecting me to answer him by 1 p.m. He wrote that the matter was urgent. It was so urgent that he published the story ten days later!

• A journalist phoned a minister on Sunday afternoon. The minister was unwell and resting. He requested an email that he promised to answer by five. The journalist said ok. The story was published five days later! The journalist said that that the minister's answer showed that there was nothing sinister going on so the issue was not news any longer.

• A journalist phones a public official at 5.00p.m. on Friday asking him a number of complicated questions the answer to which had to be researched. He had to check files, ask people etc before answering. This person said that he was occupied in a public activity until late but would answer early Saturday. The journalist published the story giving the impression that the person concerned was trying to avoid to answer. This person phoned the journalist on Saturday at 10.30a.m. The journalist was furious. "How dare you phone me at such an hour on Saturday morning? I am still asleep." Try imagining what that journalist would have written had a politician given such an answer.

• A comment of mine was published as part of a story on one of our dailies. There was one little snag: I had not given that paper any comment. They lifted a couple of sentences from a considerably longer article I published in a different paper without having the decency of referring to the source. Readers were given the impression that I made that comment for that paper, which was not the case. Besides, they did not adequately quote what I had written!

Lack of accountability

One of the problems with the media in general and journalism in particular is the lack of accountability, which then breeds a lack of responsibility. The Broadcasting Authority has a lot of power in the broadcasting field but no similar authority exists for print journalism. I am not advocating the setting up of a print media regulator. We do not need such a regulator but we need stronger structures of self-regulation. Unfortunately, there is not a universally recognised and respected Press Complaints Commission. The reader does not have a real remedy for his or her complaints. This is a great pity.

Besides, there is no lobby group of media users which can make its voice and presence felt. Experience has shown that NGO's "guarding" the interests of consumers and defending the environment have made a big difference in both areas. The rights of the consumers and our environment are better served now. The same would happen if a media users' lobby group would be set up.

Will anyone take the initiative?