Parliamentary committee hears proposal for press regulator

The parliamentary committee for the recodification of laws today heard proposals that would set up an arbitration system for readers and aggrieved parties to contest newspaper reports, instead of resorting to costly libel sui

Mediatoday managing editor Saviour Balzan told the committee, chaired by Nationalist MP Franco Debono, that a press regulator financed by media houses would provide an ombudsman for press complaints. Guided by press guidelines and journalists' code of ethics, the regulator would issue decisions that are binding on newspapers, as a form of redress.

"Sanctions would be real and the advantage of arbitration would be that this would be focused, unlike libel cases that are costly and could take years."

PBS head of news Natalino Fenech said in a number of instances there was never ownership of the code of ethics when the Press Ethics Commission took a decision.

"Balzan's proposal is more open and could work if the code is agree upon by all media houses. It also means that sanctions would be effective, unlike the Press Ethics Commission's sanctions. If a grievous error is found, a form of sanction would have to be discussed."

Much of the discussion held with media editors and other television presenters, focused on the drafting of a stronger code of ethics - even though the Institute of Maltese Journalists (IGM) has only recently updated its own code.

Debono asked editors to work towards a unified code of ethics, but an overall mood in the committee seemed inclined to suggest that IGM should be legally empowered to issue sanctions against members of the press who fall foul of the codes of ethics.

Times editor Steve Mallia insisted that self-regulation was essential to the freedom of the press. "Lawyers are not the same thing as a press," he pointed out, referring to legal practitioners who stand to lose their warrants if they fall foul of their code of ethics or a similar breach of the law.

Indeed, Labour MP and shadow minister for justice Josè Herrera pushed the line that journalists could be banned or face some form of censure in sanctions that could be incorporate in criminal law.

Another problem discussed by the committee was whether a journalist could ever be defined, citing cases of anonymous bloggers or similarly 'unregulated' members of the press, and members of the public who purchase airtime on TV stations to present current affairs programmes.

Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech said all media houses required fundamental laws to follow, but what was crucial was the respect for facts. "And the ability to distinguish between facts, over and above bias or story order. The basis of professional journalism is to say that white is white, and black if black."