Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/739032
25 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 16 OCTOBER 2016 Opinion And it's an important distinction, too. Any old politician can simply abdicate responsibility and leave it to others to decide in his stead. But it's not what we elect politicians to do, is it? In the absence of any clearer indicator, we can only conclude that Busuttil 's personal view is the one ref lected in his parliamentary vote. The alternative would be to conclude that the Opposition leader supports things with which he disagrees; and that is not a very encouraging thought, given that he could be Prime Minister tomorrow. Nor is this the only contradiction. Pressed to clarif y his apparent f lip-f lop, Busuttil helpfully explained: "My position on the morning- after pill has been clear: if it is not abortive there should be no issue with making it readily available." Right: so I guess that the adverb 'readily' must have gone the way of 'never', and ended up meaning the precise opposite. When something is 'readily available', it means (or used to mean) that there is no hurdle or barrier placed in the way of actually obtaining it. In the same context, you would describe Panadol or Aspirin as 'readily available'. Antibiotics, on the other hand, are not 'readily available' in Malta. You need a prescription for those... which places them in the same category as the morning- after pill, thanks to a decision supported by Simon Busuttil. But in any case. If the subject is politicians' contradicting themselves, I could carry on all day. In fact I will carry on a little further, because it has become customary – in this weird place – to feel compelled to extend criticism of any one political party to all other parties, too. And even though, when you think about it, this self-imposed media convention makes not an iota of sense... it never ceases to actually work, given how little the two parties actually differ in practically any aspect. So if you want to consult the official catalogue of Labour's fancy f lip-f lops – of which it is now the proud owner of an entire intergalactic footwear department store – one need look no further than its 2013 election manifesto. One of the chapters was entitled 'We will guarantee more accountability and transparency'. Yeah, I thought that was kind of amusing, too... But like I said, I could go on all day. Let us return to my own apparent f lip-f lop regarding Caroline Muscat's career move. When I wrote, on my Facebook wall, that it was a 'loss for Maltese journalism', I was actually thinking out loud in my own capacity as a Maltese journalist. Which represents a vastly different perspective from that of the rest of the country. To anyone not involved in that tiny microcosm... then no, it's no great loss whatsoever. People change jobs all the time. Why they choose to do so, or where they take up employment afterwards, is of nobody else's concern. That is all perfectly true on the surface. But my concern (unlike most others) is not what the move entails for Caroline Muscat herself... or for the PN, or Labour for that matter. It is the implications for the profession she chose to leave. From this perspective, her precise reasons for leaving become important. In announcing her decision, she said that "I am giving up my career in journalism because I have been left with little doubt that this government is riddled with corruption." The implications are disquieting, to people involved in the sector. As journalists, we kid ourselves that we play an important role in the democratic process. The fourth pillar is meant to act as a custodian of the public interest: we make public that which others want to remain hidden. As I remarked in that post: The Panama Papers scandal was exposed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists; NOT the International Consortium of Political Party Campaign Managers. So if her decision to leave journalism was motivated by a desire to expose corruption... what does it tell us about the media's effectiveness at a task which should be its defining characteristic? It tells me that something is deeply wrong with the entire journalism landscape in this country. And, indirectly, it also points towards precisely that. Without going into the merits of her decision itself, Caroline Muscat's move is symptomatic of a general momentum away from journalism, and towards public relations (mostly in politics). A full list of journalists who left the profession to take up overtly political roles – either working for a party, or as a handpicked attaché within a government ministry – would not fit in this entire newspaper. Clearly, there is a level at which a career in journalism is viewed primarily as a stepping stone for a career in politics. And that is not merely a different vocation from journalism. It is the precise antithesis of journalism, and as such it explains why the profession has largely failed in this country. Nobody can take the media seriously as a custodian of the public interest, if its protagonists – just like the two political parties – suddenly turn into their opposites, without anyone even batting an eyelid. It undermines the credibility of the entire platform. Under such circumstances, the 'fourth pillar' cannot even hold itself upright, let alone keep aloft the entire political system. Of course, there are other associated problems. As the PN's new campaign manager, Caroline Muscat will be spending at least three million euros, acquired through secret loans from undisclosed sources. We don't know who contributed to this campaign fund through the Cedoli scheme; nor how much each contribution was worth. How does that square up with the principles of accountability and transparency? How can one fight corruption, while spending money that (for all we know) could easily have come from corrupt sources, or be tied to future favours once the PN is safely in power? A journalist would find these questions difficult to answer. A politician, on the other hand, will answer them simply thus: With a f lip, and a f lop, and a f lippety-f lop... After his ill- judged comment rightly provoked outrage on the worldwide web – Busuttil predictably issued an equal but opposite statement Nobody can take the media seriously as a custodian of the public interest, if its protagonists suddenly turn into their opposites