Dangerous ideas about the press

Having heard the proceedings of the parliamentary committee for the recodification of laws that discussed the tightening of the screws of the Press Act, I must express concern at the kind of reasoning expressed by some media doyens.

Foremost was Peppi Azzopardi of Xarabank, and Franco Debono - the MP who aspires to be justice minister some day - who said that people facing criminal or other judicial inquiries should not have their names published pending the verdict.

It's a horrible prospect that goes against the interest, the long-term interests, of justice and the more we entertain this idea the more we are getting closer to some silly version of the UK's super-injunction.

Justice must be seen to be made: the public must know if somebody is being charged or tried, and it must know that the courts are doing their job properly, be able to follow the proceedings of any case that is in the public's interest - and that means everything.

Everything that warrants the use of taxpayers' money to have the courts function and carry out justice, is in the public interest.

Azzopardi said that the names of charged people often linger for years on the digital media, while Debono said people are often perceived guilty pending the long years that a case takes to be concluded.

Then speed up the court process, give the accused a fair and expedient trial to ensure justice is served and seen to be made, and enjoy public trust.

I agreed with Joe Mifsud, who said that white-collar criminals often benefit from the ban on the publication of the names, while petty thieves who hail from underprivileged families and regions: a very typical Maltese scene in the courts. Court bans are regulated by the law and should protect relatives and other victims of child abuse: the problem is the discretion of the judiciary which it uses at times to protect certain suspects in financial crime.

Another bad suggestion was to give warrants to journalists. Joe Pirotta, the head of the PBS editorial board, felt that certain candidates entered the trade and thereafter are considered to be journalists.

As an academic, Pirotta should know better. There has been little communication between the industry and university on improving journalism training. Around 80% of MaltaToday's newsroom has university degrees and postgraduate degrees; a good deal of early school-leavers and others with intermittent tertiary education are exceptional journalists.

It's editors who must be responsible for the quality of journalism they publish. Warrants would create a new system of preventing newspapers from employing who they wish: in any case, nobody needs a warrant for free speech - and if that is abused, it becomes a court matter.

Another dangerous proposal was to increase the penalties for libel. It's a horrible idea yet again. The people who speak in favour of this are MPs, people who hail from the political parties who have agreed to put their heads together to settle their differences and save themselves tens of thousands of euros in legal damages; these are the same parties which are not regulated by party financing laws or other data protection rules.

Increasing libel damages would cripple the mainstream media, and strengthen the colluding party media and unofficial voices - such as blogs which serve personal interests but not the public interest - and be directly detrimental to freedom of expression as a whole.

I have written about the need for a discussion for a press regulator here. Joe Mifsud rightly mentioned that Judge Silvio Meli, as magistrate, often mediated to have parties in libel suits settle their differences. It is hoped his example is carried on in the court of Francesco Depasquale.