The past few weeks have exposed the government at its weakest in the domain of news and media management.

First we had the Prime Minister himself unilaterally choosing whom to invite for a press briefing at il-Girgenti. Not only were those uninvited conspicuous by their own absence, but those responsible for extending the invitation to those who did attend did not even tell them that they would be forming part of a selected few rather than attending a session open to the media at large.

For this reason I cannot but congratulate the editorialist of a local Sunday newspaper for having spoken of selective media “manipulation” in the following terms:

“While it is the prerogative of the main news source in the private sphere to plead the right to privacy and to be ‘in control’ of the information released to the media, this is not the same where the government and agencies of the state, paid out of public funds, are involved.”

This apart, I can recall many instances where inspired leaks by certain ministries made certain local newspapers and particularly favourite journalists privy to particular “inside information” either to judiciously feed them with “hot” news items to pre-empt certain criticism or carry out certain kite-flying, or else to avoid having to issue formal press releases to rebut allegations made by the opposition of the day.

A case in point was the Foreign Affairs Ministry wherein the minister concerned recently opted to give selective comments to a particular local journalist on a press statement of mine on Maltese-Libyan relations without going through the motions of issuing a formal press release in reply.

But the ultimate in astounding behaviour was the way the Investments and IT Minister apparently stopped his Film Commissioner from replying to an interview in The Times simply because he did not obtain ministerial sanction before doing so.

In order to camouflage this behaviour, Minister Gatt told us that since he became responsible for his gigantic ministry he mapped out a number of corporate policies in areas that are common to all of his responsibilities. The minister chose to include public relations in this domain together with such other totally unrelated subjects as procurement and the environment.

According to the minister’s reply to an editorial in The Times, not only does his ministry insist on prior clearance of such interviews but it is entirely up to the ministry concerned to decide whether such requests are acceded to or not.

Just for the record, this is the same ministry which one fine day chose not to issue any further statements on the Sea Malta privatisation controversy until it deemed fit.

The pretext that the minister used to “justify” his actions was that none of the entities that fall within his ministerial portfolio are in any way, legally, or politically, autonomous or independent.

That I do not doubt in the least, coming as it does from a minister who, in his former role of secretary-general of the Nationalist Party, had – if my memory serves me well – gone on record stating that even permanent secretaries should be political appointees in order to enjoy the full trust and confidence of the ministers of the day.

Minister Gatt tried to justify his actions by complaining that today there is little sense of belonging, of corporate responsibility, of feeling that one is part of a greater whole.

If only he could have convinced all those parastatal chairmen who have served under him, he would not have had such a spate of resignations from senior parastatal appointees as was the case in recent months.

From what I can understand, further resignations are possible under Minister Gatt, while others might have been in the pipeline and were withdrawn at the last minute.

In order to pursue his image,

the minister did not think twice about criticising his ministerial colleagues.

Had this not been the case, he would not have commented as follows:

“Some ministers give in because they consider bad press as the worst thing that can happen to them. I never have and will not start now…”

In my time, I used to actually encourage chairmen of the corporations for which I was responsible to keep the best of relations with the local media. When chairmen of Enemalta such as Martin Bonello Cole and Prof. Mifsud gave interviews on their field of activity to the local press, neither did they seek my prior approval nor did I expect them to do so.

Once they had retained their “seat” as chairmen of the corporation involved, this meant that I had full trust and confidence in them.

There is a difference between managing communications and exercising control in a draconian manner.

e-mail: [email protected]