Without pointing a finger at any one particular newspaper on the stalls, the past few months saw a marked intensification of invective, even vituperation, in the local print and broadcast media. Some of it spilled over to some editorial columns. Most of it flooded the letter pages and those taken up by some so-called commentators.
Scurrilous, intemperate writing in the political media may be dismissed as clumsy, heavy-handed propaganda. However, deliberately loaded comment in the so-called “independent” media is another thing, particularly when it is anonymous or when a newspaper declares that the name and address of the writer is supplied but is withheld from readers who are expected to consider seriously the fare they are offered.
Newspaper editing has its difficulties. Since these are open as well as hidden, newspaper editing merits close inquiry. The manner in which a newspaper editor does his work moulds the character of a newspaper. On its character depends its real influence on public opinion.
An American judge and liberal thinker, Mr Justice Frankfurter, once pointed out that the freedom of the press is not freedom from responsibility for its exercise.
Does the competitive keenness for increased circulation justify morally indefensible writings that amount to character assassination, demonisation, invasion of privacy or, for that matter, the exploitation of crime, politics or sex?
It has often been said that, in the same way as manners maketh man, mud-slinging maketh morons. In like manner, sensationalism is the enemy of objectivity.
A democratic press should give space to every legitimate point of view. In a mature political community, parliamentary gladiators and their supporters should be allowed to fight out the issues under the public gaze. However, apart from being expected to be even-handed, independent newspapers are also expected to exercise restraint – not self-censorship, but a form of conduct which conforms to public decency.
Equally, independent editors are expected to fight shy of the temptation to exercise a monopolistic curb on public opinion.
The point I am making is that the media, like all other institutions, are vulnerable to the corruption that comes with too much power and must be constantly aware that, over the past several years, some journalists, in Malta and elsewhere, succumbed to the temptation of placing their profession, not only above the law but also above morality.
This danger is ever present and can only be held in check by everlasting democratic vigilance.
This is not to say that editors are not entitled to express editorial opinion with full freedom. The point at issue is that witch hunts as well as character assassination should have no place in newspapers which claim pride for their independence and integrity.
Editors vary in manifest ways in their methods and aims, and in projecting their political and economic views. They need to show a mastery of technical and professional problems, generalship in the control of their staff and, above all, a sense of responsibility.
It would seem that, in this age of transparency and accountability, there is a case for editors to be more accessible to public scrutiny of the kind that would cut them down to size if and when they tend to exceed their role. This is by no means an original idea.
I echo the thought of Lord Fisher of Lambeth, Archbishop of Canterbury, who spoke about the role of editors in a House of Lords debate as far back as 22 June, l960. This is what he said –
“My impression is that editors are shy and elusive persons, not courting publicity for themselves, as has been suggested here this afternoon, because they are anxious and afraid. But one way of helping their profession would be for them to come out into the open and into open discussion about the methods, morals and manners which they try to interpret in their profession.
If editors would become more frequent speakers in public about the purposes, ideals, ambitions and abuses of the Press, it would do a power of good to themselves, to the profession and to all of us…Would not editors and leading journalists be wise to be more willing and ready to be publicly examined in TV interviews and the like on everything that comes within their professional skill?”
This quotation is lifted from the introduction of a book on The Problems of an Editor by Sir Linton Andrews, published in l962. Sir Linton was the editor of the Leeds Journal and The Yorkshire Post, over a span of 37 years. He was a one-time chairman of the Press Council of Great Britain.
His professional acumen was matched by his conscientious outlook, reinforced perhaps by his rigorous self-discipline which took in its stride the reading of a page or two of Thomas Kempis each night. There are not many editors who do this any more, by day or by night!
Perhaps all the above adds up to a string of generalisations. I have deliberately concentrated on editorial sins rather than the sinners.
The real point at issue for the leaders of Maltese public opinion is to examine, fairly and without fantasies, a number of outstanding questions on the unqualified rights of newspaper editors and newspaper owners.
[email protected]