How about regulating yourselves first?

Ok, let’s start with the obvious. ‘Regulators’ are important things. Without them, it would not be possible to scuba-dive... and without scuba-diving, a sadly undervalued part of our nationalism tourism product would be irremediably lost forever.

But that, as far as I can see, is the extent of their importance locally. In virtually all other spheres, those things we call ‘regulators’ have proved to be at best a flaming nuisance, at worst a downright disaster. So when it comes to discussing the need for a ‘press regulator’ in this county, it might be worth bearing in mind our collective experience with all the other authorities, committees, commissions and quangos that are already supposed to ‘regulate’ their various sectors and industries.

Yes, I thought so, too. Puts a different perspective on things, doesn’t it? But first things first. And the first question that pops into my mind is: why are we discussing the need for an ‘independent press regulator’ precisely now, anyway? How did this discussion even come about?

I’m not sure how it actually started; what I do know is that veteran broadcaster Godfrey Grima floated the idea on this week’s ‘Reporter’… and Opposition MP Chris Said promptly threw his own (and presumably his party’s) weight behind it. I am unaware of any position taken by the Labour government since then. But seeing as ‘regulating the press’ is very often an idea that appeals to governments… especially governments which already exert massive control over public and national media, and are looking to expend their sphere of media influence over the private sector… something tells me we might soon be looking at that extremely rare and endangered species of animal: political consensus, which only ever arises when an issue serves an equally useful purpose to both parties.     

Hmm. Already I see massive problems looming on the horizon. Not, mind you, because the idea is such a bad thing in itself. As Grima rightly notes, a ‘Press Ethics Commission’ exists in the UK (though strangely, Grima stopped short of noting just how ineffective it proved to be in the recent phone-tapping scandal, among others...) and you will find equivalents in various other European countries.

No, the problems I envisage concern the practical, logistical and – dare I say it – political aspects of the affair. Going on experience with other regulators, and my own personal experience with the press, I’d say the only possible outcome is more imbalance, more injustice, and more spokes in the wheels for the only sector of the profession that is actually trying to do its job.

Let’s start with the proposed composition of this press regulator. Grima envisions it as “composed of the editors of local media along with an independent chairman”...Whoah, stop right there. An independent chairman? Independent of what, exactly? The media? The government? All the various commercial, political, trade union and ______ (fill in with the sector of your choice) interests that inevitably collide with the agenda of the free press in any given country?

Sorry, folks. Ain’t gonna happen. For one thing, we have yet to discuss how this chairman would be appointed. If the press regulator borrows its basic structure from other analogous institutions (such as MEPA, which was officially a regulator for both planning and the environment), its chairman will be appointed directly by the government. From the word go, then, the person with the casting vote and right of veto in all decisions will not only be directly dependent on the State for job/salary/perks/renewal of contract, etc… but he or she will also be appointed (indirectly) by a political party which owns its own newspapers, television and radio stations. We would have to change the definition of the word ‘independent’ to its very antithesis… which (come to think about it) shouldn’t be too hard, seeing as we’ve already done the same thing in all others sectors we have ‘regulated’.

I’ve already mentioned MEPA, so I may as well expand. How had MEPA regulated the environment, for instance? Oh, in some instances it took vital strategic decisions that made a world of difference: to seawater quality, for instance, or in the case of specific, individual environmental disfigurements. But in its broader role as custodian of the natural environment? Protecting Malta’s landscape from the one sector which threatens it the most (and which is widely known to finance both parties)?

The words ‘unmitigated disaster’ spring to mind… borrowed from the former chairman of Arriva, when describing his experiences in Malta until last year. He was, of course, referring to the transport sector… and made specific references to ‘overpaid consultants’ who gave all the worst advice possible at the highest fees. In other words, the consultants that had been commissioned by ADT, the transport ‘regulator’, in the course of its ordinary, ‘regulating’ duties…

Oh, dear. And that’s not to mention those commissions and whatnot that already exist to regulate individual sectors of the media: such as the Broadcasting Authority, for instance. Once again, all the traditional, perennial problems immediately swim into view. The chairman is appointed by the government, usually after consultation with the opposition – which means that the owners of two private broadcasting empires, both in direct competition with State broadcasting (which they both take turns to control anyway) get to name the referee, in a game in which they themselves are major players.

To be fair, the referee they choose is (in theory) free to decide matters as he or she deems fit. Yet somehow, strangely, past BA board decisions seem to have only ever resulted in more regulation for PBS, and less for ONE and NET TV. Curious coincidence, huh?

Ah, but I know what you’re thinking. The newly minted ‘press regulator’ will be immune to all that. It will be a magical press regulator, which draws its energy from the Force to guarantee success where all other attempts at ‘regulation’ have failed miserably. And in case you think I’m being sarcastic: oh no, not me. Cynical, perhaps. But I actually mean it when I say this press regulator will succeed. For what is its purpose, anyway? What would constitute ‘success’, when applied to an institution that exists to ‘regulate’ the independent media? 

It depends whom you ask, really. Ask a bona fide journalist (the difficulty would be finding one, but never mind that for now) and he or she will tell you that an independent regulator is necessary to guarantee a level playing field in all aspects of the profession, as well as to ward against flagrant abuse of press ethics (which ultimately damage journalism as a whole).

Ask Chris Said or any of his colleagues on both sides of the House, however – all four, if you include the two independents – and my hunch is that you’ll get a very different answer.

These are (lest we forget) the same people who promised us a reform of the Press Act to remove criminal libel from the statute book. This reform simply never took place in 25 years under the PN, and Labour has yet to implement it as an electoral promise made over three years ago. They are also the same people who have time and again resorted to criminal libel action themselves, when affronted by a newspaper article they didn’t like. I have said this before, but it is worth repeating in this new context. If you list out all the plaintiffs in criminal libel by profession, you will find that MPs and politicians top the list by an exponential order of magnitude.  

And now – instead of putting where their mouth is, all that money they’ve made from libel proceedings – they have the cheek to propose yet another system geared towards limiting the ability of the free press to question them in any way.

No, no, that’s putting the cart before the horse. Remove criminal libel first, like you both promised… and then we might come round to discussing phase two of the operation.

For there is plenty to discuss. How will the law define who or what media outlet qualifies as part of the ‘press’ to begin with? It’s not a straightforward question, you know. Just recently, a magistrate had to reach a formal decision as to whether a certain blogger we all know – and who just happens to wield incalculable media influence in this country – met the specific definition of ‘journalist’ as laid down in the Malta Press Act. 

Going on that magistrate’s decision, the new regulator will have to extend its jurisdiction to online media, and by extension to ‘citizen journalists’, not to mention anyone who uses the medium to ‘inform’ others of events and occurrences anywhere in the world. Yikes! Given how utterly ineffectual its closest equivalent, the BA, has been at regulating one isolated area of the media… what are the chances of a new quango successfully ‘regulating’ a blogosphere in which anyone with an Internet link can now meet the definition of ‘journalist’?

Seriously, folks. That cannot possibly happen. So it won’t happen… and instead we will be left with an ‘independent’ press regulator (run by a representative of two privately-owned political media empires) whose sole remit will be to monitor and shackle Malta’s three-odd private print media houses, while ignoring everyone else. Never mind that the bulk of the ‘flagrant abuse of press ethics’ takes place on politically motivated hate-blogs these days… it will be the mainstream newspapers, and their Press Act-approved journalists, who will find themselves under any form of increased scrutiny. Mark my words.

It is even perfectly conceivable that the politicians who will ultimately establish this regulator at law, will somehow see to it that their own party newspapers and websites are exempt from its jurisdiction. And it shouldn’t surprise us, either. After all, it’s precisely what they’ve already done with their own radio and TV stations.

Ultimately, it all boils down to a question of trust. Can we trust the present establishment to regulate a profession that is, by definition (whether it lives up to it or not) an indispensable pillar upholding the entire apparatus of democracy? My answer is… you’re kidding, right?