Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1365202
2 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR Matthew Vella mvella@mediatoday.com.mt Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 25 APRIL 2021 COVID support does not undermine media autonomy Editorial MORE often than not, the journalism profession in Malta is spoken about – rightly – within the context that brought about the assassination of Daphne Caru- ana Galizia. Little after that tragic event can be spoken of, in relation to the media, without ever referring to Caruana Galizia's death; being the most fearsome re- minder of the evil that the power of mafia, and ill-got- ten wealth, can beget. But there are other, more diverse threats to the me- dia landscape: in today's working environment, threats and harassment are a reality faced by Maltese journal- ists every day. Many do not feel safe from abuse and physical harm; and harassment itself – or online abuse, of any kind – has become altogether too easy, in a dig- itised world. These are all constant realities that journalists must contend with all the time. And on top of the verbal abuse, there is also the constant prodding and suspi- cion from those who mischaracterise journalists as 'al- lies' or 'villains', in a power play that pits an omnipotent government on one extreme, against a disenfranchised populace on the other. Politicians are adept at this game; their supporters easily follow their line. And we all know the rules: the ones in power claim that journalists are destabilising the work of their administration; the ones who aspire to that power themselves, denounce journalists who com- municate the work of government, or if they question the opposition's agenda. But objectively, journalists are there to discharge their duties irrespective of whoever is in power, or wishes to acquire power. It is an 'anonymous' public they serve, through the verification of facts. They are not elected by constituents, or paid by clients; nor are they even di- rectly accountable to the shareholders, as it were. They might 'know' and serve an audience; but jour- nalism's first obligation is towards the truth, a truth that is universal to all citizens... not just the readers who buy a newspaper. Nonetheless, it is indeed true that newspapers are owned by groups which ultimate operate on prof- it-driven models. The publishing business... sells adver- tising. Newspapers are responsible for bringing jour- nalism to readers who want to be informed, educated and entertained, and empowered in their participation in democracy. And it is a fact that these 'demographics' are the target of advertisers; which takes us back full circle. This cannot be denied; and it has long been the ac- cepted newspaper model, not just in Malta, but every- where in the world. Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pan- demic has brought about unprecedented challenges to a model that was already struggling to keep its head above water, in a digital world where return on adver- tising has been inevitably diluted. For this reason, the frequent criticism of Maltese newspapers and media groups which benefited from government grants in 2020, recently reflected in the RSF press freedom index, misrepresents the reality of newspapers. It is an unfair, if not misinformed, view of the Maltese media landscape. Like all businesses in Malta that employ workers, me- dia houses like MaltaToday's publisher were paid €132 a month as a wage supplement for each worker (other ordinary businesses which had to shut down were paid €800 a month; media houses were excluded from this generous 'annex', despite the purported benefit that journalism brings to a democracy). Additionally, newspapers and radio stations were granted a uniform €10,000 a month between March and December (this was €5,000 for online-only news- papers, and €45,000 for TV stations). However, these were not simply 'gifts' from the gov- ernment: the €10,000 monthly (€90,000 from March to December) was deducted from any EU-linked funds or grants that media companies may yet claim or apply for (the de minimis principle). The government here fa- cilitated a disbursement of European funds that could have been claimed by newspaper groups for the work they do. Still, it is quite probable that these grants served to pad anything between 5% to 15% of salary bills. It is no secret that print circulation (retail sales) are dwin- dling, and the laborious economy of digital advertising (newspapers compete with and are subservient to the social media and search engine behemoths) bring less returns. So should media organisations have to suffer the gratuitous climate of suspicion, for having – like so many other businesses in Malta – accepted govern- ment support during the COVID-19 pandemic? More to the point: does anyone have any evidence to suggest that journalists discharged their duties any dif- ferently in 2020, by withholding any criticism of people in power, or sparing them embarrassing revelations, or refusing to report the opposing views of those who as- pire to replace them in power? The extraordinary circumstance of the pandemic certainly opens up a debate on whether an alternative model of funding for newspapers is needed. But wher- ever the funding comes from, we should also keep in mind that, for journalists whose livelihoods depend on the trade of journalism, that ensuring they can dis- charge their duties safe from harassment and undue in- fluence is crucial; but having the security of their job is also part of that package. To gratuitously suggest that any media organisation that benefitted from government's COVID support, has automatically relinquished its ability to hold the same government to account, is clearly not aware of how journalists and their editors truly operate. 24 April 2011 Pastoral note warns of 'irreparable conse- quences' for Catholics who vote 'Yes' IN a thinly veiled threat of excommunication and eternal damnation, Malta's Catholic bish- ops have reminded the faithful that there will be 'irreparable consequences' to voting 'Yes' in the May 28 divorce referendum. A pastoral note, issued to priests in March but recently made public on the website of the Archdiocese, makes it clear that all Chris- tians who intend to vote 'Yes' in the referen- dum will be defying the will of God and the Magisterium of the Church. "The Christian must take a decision to vote in favour or against divorce legislation in the light of his belief. For the Christian, a law that transforms marriage into something temporary runs counter to the will of Our Father. For this reason, the Christian who favours divorce will create a division between his beliefs and his intended decision: which decision will bear irreparable consequences." As 'irreparable' unequivocally means that no remedy will be possible, the Bishops' warning places a Yes vote in the referen- dum firmly in the same category as a Mortal Sin: almost exactly half a century after the Church resorted to identical sanctions in its notorious 1961 altercation with the Labour Party. The note goes on: "In our pastoral work, we priests have the duty to help the Chris- tian make a proper judgement of marriage according to the word of God, in the light of the Magisterium of the Church, including her social teaching of about the real good of the individual and of society. "When the Christian recognises that his judgement does not tally with the teachings of Christ, as communicated by the Church, he will not be free from guilt if he does not realign his judgement with that teaching – because when [a Christian] consciously and freely breaks the moral law, he will be break- ing his relation with God, the father of Our Lord Jesus Christ." However, the same pastoral note also gives an informal blessing to the government's plans to regulate cohabitation at law: despite the fact that, like divorce, cohabitation also falls foul of God's law. ... Quote of the Week "Whoever wants a gym can pay for a membership" Infrastructure minister Ian Borg in response to criticism by fitness enthusiasts who complained about amateur exercise equipment in public spaces MaltaToday 10 years ago