The media has come under attack several times in the past few days.

First we had a lawyer representing a minister in a court case demanding that a journalist reveal the name of a source. Later, we had the Chamber of Advocates rushing in to defend lawyers against unspecified media comments.

The third attack on the media came on Monday when the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development decided that journalists will no longer be allowed to cover MCESD meetings. This was agreed to by the social partners after a complaint by one of the members.

To compound matters further, on Tuesday journalists were not allowed inside the Lands Department, which is at the centre of a political controversy that led to the resignation of parliamentary secretary Michael Falzon.

Although all incidents have been attempts to bully the media and stop it from exercising its duty, the toothless Institute of Journalists has remained silent. It’s no surprise.

The Chamber of Advocates stopped short of indicating what particular incident and which media house it was referring to in its statement. By putting everyone in the same basket, the chamber was directly attacking all journalists and their duty to act as a watchdog on society’s behalf.

Rather than lashing out at journalists, it would be better if the chamber exercised more control on its members who harass, not to say persecute, journalists in a bid to have their cases pushed in the media.

I cannot understand why the chamber is suggesting that the media stops from publicly criticising lawyers. Hinting that any form of criticism directed at lawyers should be made via the Commission for the Administration of Justice verged on the ludicrous. The media criticises presidents, prime ministers, politicians and the rest. Why should lawyers be different? Does the chamber believe that lawyers are above criticism?

In its statement, the chamber said that the media comments it was referring to were intended “exert indirect pressure” on judges and magistrates. This, in itself, is a direct insult to the magistrates and judges – if they are so easily influenced by the media, then they should not hold their position in the first place.

With regard to the MCESD decision, it has been explained that the council acted autonomously from the government and that the government had nothing to do with its decision. But it is clear that the social partners are afraid to speak up under a Labour administration. They were never afraid to criticise the Nationalist government, but now they are so wary of the current administration that they do not even want the media present when they meet at MCESD level.

With their action to prohibit the media, the social partners which form part of MCESD have only given yet another confirmation that this government is not prepared to listen. Neither does it welcome any discordant voices; social partners are frightened to be seen to be opposing the government.

That journalists were then told they are not welcome at the Lands Department is another matter of serious concern. Our journalist who identified himself was not even given the chance to say what he wanted or name the person he wished to speak to – he was simply shown the door and told that journalists were not to be allowed inside.

I ask the same question I asked last week. Is all this an attempt to muzzle the media?