The truth about MaltaToday

That is exactly what The Sunday Times did last Sunday when it chose to launch a scathing attack and tirade against MaltaToday in its editorial. The Sunday Times invective coincides with the present campaign against MaltaToday, driven by concern that we have eaten into The Times readership and we continue to run stories that the Times buries, and which the government simply does not want us to run. This is all about threatened commercial interests and readership ratings.

The sacking of a Times journalist after an incident in which Minister Austin Gatt and a university student who chose to call the minister a ‘fucking wanker’ merits news attention, and was in the public interest to carry.

The Times had every chance to explain the reasons for the sacking. Mr Mallia certainly didn’t. The fact remains that the timing of Matthew Bonanno’s termination is interesting from a reader’s point of view and in the public interest to reveal.

Allow me to tackle all the points raised in Mr Mallia’s editorial.

(1) Yes, I served as a consultant with the government on negotiations with the EU on segments of the environment directives. I resigned in April 2004, citing a clear conflict of interest in my newly acquired role as co-owner and editor of a newspaper that I had just purchased from my former employer.

(2) Yes, I campaigned with Moviment Iva ghal Ewropa, and yes, I championed European Union membership and this coincided perfectly with MaltaToday’s pro-EU stance.  I do not see anything wrong in this. Independence also includes taking a stand and remaining neutral. I even said in a 2003 editorial that voters should vote number 1 for the Nationalist Party, to the end that Malta enters the EU.

(3) Mallia accused us of using the services of Dr Toni Abela as my legal advisor because he is Deputy Leader for Party Affairs of the Labour party. As a result, Mallia infers collusion with the PL. Dr Abela has been a friend and a legal advisor for over two decades. Back to the times when he was expelled from the Labour Party for airing his views against the corruption and violence in that same party.

It is strange that Mallia takes umbrage on the choice of lawyers because of their political colour. Mallia certainly shows no such sensitivity in other similar choices. Indeed it shows a mindset that I am sure the Chamber of Advocates would find difficult to condone. Needless to say, the legal team at MediaToday consists of other lawyers which include Dr Philip Manduca, Dr Richard Galea Debono, Dr Leslie Cuschieri and Dr Charmaine Galea. Would Mr Mallia like to give us the go ahead when using these lawyers in future? Or perhaps screen these lawyers for their political affiliation?

(4) The serious accusation made by Mr Mallia that I choose whom to target in my columns, based on who gives us or does not give us adverts is a lie, and libellous. It also shows how little Mallia knows MediaToday and how we work. If I were only interested in commercial matters, I would have sold my soul to the many commercial interests around us and made a killing. This allegation is not only libellous – and legal procedures will be instituted – but one that brings to the fore the basic difference between Mallia and myself.

Mr Mallia does not know what it means to run an independent media company. He never has to worry about the salaries, salary costs or whether his directors carry out extravagant spending for themselves.

We do not compromise in our editorial content, but I also have to concern myself with the financial viability of the company in a climate where independent journalism is not a joy ride.

Yes, I am involved in the running of the business at MediaToday but this does not impinge on our editorial content.

When threats of a garnishee order by the local tuna pen owners was unleashed against two shareholders at MaltaToday because of our news stories, our first preoccupations were our staff, and the survival of the newspaper.

Perhaps Mr Mallia could specify and give hard facts as to where and when I have targeted specific people because of their refusal not to give us adverts. This accusation is a very serious one, it is tantamount to accusing me of using blackmail to obtain adverts. I have taken this accusation very seriously that I have asked my lawyers to proceed with criminal libel against Mr Mallia. 

(5) Mr Mallia accuses me of being Commissioner John Dalli’s right hand man. A friend, perhaps, but not a right hand man.

That, I believe, is taking it too far. I believed at the time that John Dalli was the better choice for Prime Minister and accordingly involved myself in his leadership campaign.

Is it a sin to prefer one candidate over another? Well, it appears that it is to The Times, who are already promoting its own candidate leadership of the PN. That opinion, of course, led to the scurrilous campaign against this media house and its shareholders, which continues to this day.

The latest twist is that we are, apparently, in cahoots with the Labour Party – conveniently fanned by someone who should know better, considering he personally knows who the shareholders of this company are.

We’ve seen this before. It will not stick, because as everyone knows we are driven, not by who gets into Castille, but by what the readers should know. Their right to know, and our duty to reveal, is sacrosanct.

Mr Mallia’s long history of bias and spin is of course not up for discussion in this piece, but I would have no problem raising the spin that has characterised Mr Mallia’s newspaper stories any time.

(6) His silly suggestion that 32% of all advertising in MaltaToday comes from government is ludicrous. Our annual sales sheet shows that government revenue only represents 12% of all our revenues.

And more importantly, various ministers blatantly boycott MaltaToday because they simply do not like what we report or investigate. George Pullicino and Austin Gatt are just two examples.

Our editorial stance and investigative stories have led to an avalanche of retaliatory action from government, agencies, the  TVM editor and newsroom, PBS TV hosts, the usual hate blogs and, of course, The Times.

Mallia also takes me to task for having signed a contract of €88,000 for a yearly series of Reporter on PBS over four years ago. Half of that amount went to the audiovisual company that produced the programme, the other half to costs and the rest to tax, with the remainder going to the company.

He states I was offended when the Sunday Times revealed that I signed a contract with PBS for Reporter. 

Mr Mallia conveniently forgets to mention that it was not the revelation of my contract that led me to react, but rather the fact that only my contract was made public by Education Minister Dolores Cristina in parliament. Surprisingly, Cristina did not cite commercial secrecy when tabling details about my contract. Other companies’ contractual agreements – running into hundreds of thousands – have never been made public on the pretext that this is of a commercial nature.

(7) Mallia also suggests that I should have contacted him regarding the termination of a junior journalist in his stable (whom he did not even have the gall to face), and did not bother to ask me about this contract.

If he had, I would have informed him that for more than five years I produced Reporter free of charge for PBS. The costs were carried by the audiovisual company that previously produced the programme and I gave my services for free. Ironically, The Times also produced a programme on PBS using the same company, so they know what costs and profits in TV are all about.

But what is the problem with having a programme on PBS? The Times have been vying for programmes on PBS, why shouldn’t others? What is the issue here?

The issue is not about who wins contracts, but whether those who host the programmes are spinning the news or presenting the real news in a non-partisan manner.

(8) However, the truly shocking comment relates to when Mr Mallia refers to an incident where he says that I asked a senior person at The Times to remove a comment on a blog. He is referring to an incident where a comment by the queen of bile (who clearly hits out at anyone who probes government) stated that no sooner had my late wife’s cadaver been buried and turned cold, that I was seen in the company of another woman.

I have no idea if Mr Mallia is interested in my personal life, but if he is not, his blogger Dr Andrew Borg Cardona surely was, and is.

Apart from all the other commentaries about my sister, my mother, my father, my friends, staff members, my late wife and last but not least, my wife and her family.

Those comments were referred to by Andrew Borg Cardona on his blog in The Times. For all his wisdom, Dr Borg Cardona has no shame working in tandem with this particular bile blogger, and a TV host who blatantly promotes the government’s agenda and spin on TVM.

Since I knew that the Dr Mario de Marco has a long standing relationship (and has just been appointed on the Strickland foundation!) and influence with The Times and Sunday Times and his sister and her partner, late father and family have been targeted by the same blogger, I phoned Dr de Marco and asked him to intervene with Managing Director Adrian Hillman, failing which, I would take legal action. I know that the de Marcos have a hold on what happens in The Times.

That is the story behind the story.

And the very fact that de Marco and Adrian Hillman allowed Mallia to refer to this incident in his editorial is a reflection of how de Marco and Hillman look at this declaration of war.

(9) Mr Mallia suggests that I choose not to reply to this bile blogger because she is better at his game than I am. No, I do not reply because I do not want to descend to her level. I have no problem admitting that she is better at vitriol than I am. I declare my incompetence at descending to her level, and apologise for not pleasing all those who wish me to regale them with more odium.

I may be a brusque person, but I have never stooped to the levels of this incensed, redundant blogger. I also refuse to be party to this campaign of hate, which is apparently blessed by those in the core strategy group of the Nationalist party who believe that personal abuse is the best way to neutralise and silence the free press or any other opponents.

Mr Mallia suggests that a journalist in our stable fabricates stories, and he claims everyone knows about it. Well, if that is the case, he should come forward with the details and he should rest assured that action will be taken. Surely this is a more serious accusation than having a junior journalist who posts an innocent comment on Facebook.

Finally, The Sunday Times editor suggests that I threatened to withdraw printing at Union Print because one of my journalists had applied for a job with Union Print. Well if that is the case, then why is Charlot Zahra – the journalist Mallia is referring to – today employed at Union Print, and why is it that our publications are still published at this press?

When Mr Zahra was sacked from The Independent, I took him on, while others (such as The Times), looked the other way. I can assure Mr Mallia that I did this even though I did not need Mr Zahra’s services.

I could go on.

(10) Mr Mallia harbours the belief that I think that we are always right, or better still, the only beacon of true journalism. We are simply another player in the field of journalism. But we are more independent, more daring and more direct than The Times.

The Sunday Times has been a beacon for local journalism, but it is unashamedly intolerant to any competition, such as MaltaToday. And it is far too close to the present administration.

When MaltaToday was conceived in November 1999, I recall the two editors at the time at The Times – Ray Bugeja and Lawrence Grech – remarking that we would not survive.

Next November we celebrate 12 years and we are still here, and growing strong. Over the years, The Times have tried hard to ignore our very existence, even referring to stories in our newspaper without mentioning the source. We often laugh in the newsroom at the way Mallia struggles not to mention us.

Well, we’ve survived, and today we sail on, conscious of how difficult it is to be independent and commercially viable.

We thank Mr Mallia for dedicating a whole editorial on MaltaToday. We are very flattered. It only confirms two things.

That Mr Mallia – knowingly or unknowingly – is part of that network who wish to silence the independent and free press.

It also confirms that MaltaToday matters!

This letter appeared in MaltaToday on Sunday, it was sent to the Sunday Times editor Steve Mallia who refused to publish it