Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/939870
maltatoday SUNDAY 11 FEBRUARY 2018 Interview 15 The murder of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia cast a dark shadow over Malta's media landscape... already beset by other challenges, such as financial (and sometimes physical) pressure on media houses. PBS journalist and IGM chairperson NORMA SALIBA argues that the profession needs to be both valued and protected more venturing into the profession. Me- dia houses are finding it difficult to find employees... Yet journalism is now a taught profession in Malta (it wasn't when I started out): the university churns out new Communications graduates each year. Are these graduates not finding work within their chosen vocation? There's also a new course at MCAST. I'm told the intake this year has been around five students. Compared to other courses, it's not very much at all. So maybe we need to do some soul-searching here. What's happening to the journal- ism profession in Malta? It could be related to conditions of work: because the pay is not attractive enough, for instance. It could be because, as you're suggesting, the job itself has come to be viewed as risky. It is in the nature of our pro- fession to irritate some people at times, and it is not unheard of for people to take vindictive action. Journalists have had bombs placed outside the door in the past. Or been threatened or assaulted at the scene of an accident, for instance... but there are other forms of risk involved. A journalist might do a story about a fireworks factory ex- plosion, for example, and have to be present on the site of a catastro- phe. That's risky, too. Even subcon- sciously, journalists are often ready to face risks that they wouldn't con- sider, if they weren't working on a story... or trying to be the first to break a story. There is a level of risk across the board in this profession: whether it's because of delving into political issues, social issues, re- porting breaking news... and when it comes to investigative journalists, the risks intensify. I think that, in this profession, we need to explore ways to protect journalists – both financially and personally – but we also need to ask ourselves whether journalists are satisfied with their working conditions. At the same time, I have often observed a tendency for people to start a career in journalism, only to eventually either get absorbed by some government department's or politician's PR team. There seems to be a perception of 'journalism' as a stepping-stone towards PR in general... and PR is not merely 'different' from journalism. It can even be considered antithetical. Is this a concern for IGM? There are also some who set up their own PR agencies. It's not just with government. Many journal- ists end up doing PR within the private sector, too. But it's still a case of 'crossing over to the other side'. Those issues I mentioned, re- garding pay and work conditions, may be motivating factors. But at the end of the day, it's a personal decision. It's up to the person concerned, to decide what's more important to them: whether it's the job of a journalist, which might not pay very well... but which gives you the satisfaction of knowing that you might be able to make a difference through your work. Or whether you are motivated more by the pay or conditions. It's not always an easy choice: people's circumstances are different, and you can't blame people for trying to better their financial prospects. In a sense I went through it myself: when the company I used to work for experienced financial difficul- ties, and wasn't issuing salaries on time, I had to look for alternative employment. I found a job as a media co-ordinator at MEUSAC. I felt I had an advantage, in the sense that the job itself – which involved keeping the public informed – had a lot in common with journalism: I could use my experience, and also learn about journalism from the new perspective. That's how I looked at it: even though I ended up back in journalism anyway. Be- cause that, ultimately, is the pro- fession that gives me job satisfac- tion. But any journalist can pass through phases when they feel they've lost that sort of 'adrenaline' that keeps them going. It could be a period of reflection, after which they regain traction and go back to work with even more determina- tion... or who knows, they might end up changing job. For each in- dividual it will be different... You mention factors such as pay and conditions – including, presumably, working hours – and also that IGM consults with all stakeholders to try and improve those conditions. These are labour issues, yet IGM itself is an NGO, not a trade union (though it is performing some of a trade union's functions). Do you feel that a trade union representing journalists in Malta is, in fact, needed? And is IGM moving in that direction? Even when it came to last year's discussion on a media code of ethics, we had opened the doors to all journalists – not just our mem- bers – to take part in the debate. And other stakeholders too: be- cause journalism affects everyone, not just members of the profession itself. I am very much a believer of 'strength in unity'... I think a bet- ter, more recent example was the 'Pen Conquers Fear' campaign after Daphne Caruana Galizia's murder. It was the private initia- tive of a few journalists, who asked us for our support. We met at our premises, and discussed what we could do, as journalists, to make our voice heard. We came out with that campaign, which I think was a success, as everyone took it on board. I would like, in future, to see more examples of this sort of col- legiality. I would like to think that the campaign itself was not just a one-off: that all the media houses might continue to meet once a month, so that the decisions we take, as journalists, will be based on the actual experiences of all the newsrooms. Having said this, it is too early to say whether we should become a union or not. But when it comes into effect, this new law will give IGM a slightly bigger role: there is consensus between the Government and the Opposition that – instead of the DOI, as origi- nally proposed – it will be the IGM to handle the media registration process. Is there consensus among all media houses, too? On that, I can't answer. But the issue is not whether it's us, as IGM, who will be responsible for media registration. As things stand today, the responsibility for issuing Press Cards falls under the Department of Information. And the Press Card system itself needs to be revisited: there are practical considerations, such as when and where they are needed/ applicable, and who actually rec- ognises them beyond local gov- ernment authorities. With the new law, they will be issued by an independent entity. To me, that's already a step forward for journalism. Now, we need to take it a step further. At present, the current term of the IGM council is coming to a close. Our idea is that, at the next AGM, we will propose the inclusion of the amendments that arise from the registration responsibility into our statute, and put it to a coun- cil vote. But the idea is to open up more, and become more in- clusive: if necessary, by revising our structures in such a way that all media houses would be repre- sented in discussions and deci- sions. So when an issue that af- fects the entire profession crops up, it would ideally be discussed by all concerned... and not just by the elected council members, as is the case today. at risk? PHOTO JAMES BIANCHI