It’s not hacking. Definitely. I have no doubt about that. Much as Joseph Muscat would like to have us believe otherwise, the manner in which the private correspondence that he exchanged with Sabrina Agius (ex-RTK) became public has nothing to do with covert operations and the Internet equivalent of wire-tapping. Hours could be spent building elaborate conspiracy theories about the Maltese equivalent of MI5 monitoring every e-mail exchange, but the truth is (sometimes) much simpler than that.
In the end it all boils down to someone (probably Sabrina) leaving her work computer unattended and someone else (probably a work “colleague”) accessing her e-mail account (also left open and unattended) and downloading juicy bits. That this kind of questionable journalistic behaviour could fall foul of the computer misuse provisions of our criminal code is just another link in the greater story.
A cursory look at the contents of the correspondence and the fawning manner with which Sabrina addresses “Dear Leader” would lead me to hazard a guess that she even simplified the task for the computer misuser by storing all correspondence in a folder called “Joseph Muscat”, “Dear Leader” or even “Joseph”. The fuss about “hacking” in the professional sense of the term is misplaced. Very misplaced. It really boils down to work as usual in our PLPN world of journo-litics.
Lapdogs, poodles and bulldogs
We have become used to using canine inspired adjectives to describe journalists and columnists. From the faithful lapdog and poodle to the belligerent bulldog that is unleashed to cause raw damage when the spin so requires, we seem to be able to boast a wide variety of pedigrees that would bring any international dog show to shame. The comparison of journalists to dogs, whether faithful or otherwise, is not something endemic to our shores. The manipulation of the press by the political establishment has a long history that finds its genesis in modern times in the war reporting in South Africa (Boer War).
That journalists and politicians interact is no news at all. Both rely upon each other. Journalists can hope that a politician can give them the great news item that will boost them up the career ladder or the little bit of exclusive info that makes them shine above the rest. Politicians need the publicity afforded by journalists, they need the friendly noise in the press and, above all, every new journalist on your side is one less negative news item to deal with whenever the proverbial faeces hit the fan.
In this context, the fact that Sabrina Agius attempted to establish a working relationship (as a mole, a plant, a collaborator, a friendly journalist − take your pick... they’re words and they’re free) with the Leader of Opposition and potential cabinet-maker (not of the carpentry kind) is as surprising as the sun rising in the morning. Similarly, there has been a general noise of surprise surrounding Lou Bondì’s and Peppi Azzopardi’s political affiliations, as though we have only just discovered that these are not potential Pulitzer Prize winners but cogs in the wheels of a larger machine. Ironically, even the man pointing fingers about the supposed hacking started making political waves as a faithful hack in Dr Alfred Sant’s Labour media. So why are we suddenly all righteous about the existence of political agendas within the media milieu?
They say jump
The Sabrina Agius Saga is news because suddenly the whole fourth estate is busy spinning and counter spinning news about itself. Nathaniel Attard, head of Net news (and yes, a J’accuse cousin in case you really thought that a family relation counts as bias) provided us with three alibis − legality, public interest, journalistic scoop.
The first was that to his knowledge (and that of his legal advisers), the correspondence was not obtained illegally. I have strong doubts about a possible legality of the original act that led to the correspondence ending up in the hands of third parties. What Nathaniel’s statement does is open the way for an analysis of the questionable legal standards that can be applied to our journalists (and I mean all of them). If any news editor can feel safe claiming that private correspondence can be obtained legally without the consent of any party to the correspondence then something is wrong in the state of journalism.
Nathaniel also gave us the defence of public interest. In his editorial interpretation it was in the public’s interest to learn about the correspondence between Joseph Muscat and Sabrina Agius. Again, I am not too sure about this defence. Sure, the content of the exchange exposes a weak and opportunistic Labour leader. He is not pro-active in seeking the plant − it’s not like he is sending CVs around and placing his “moles” all over the place. Rather, he must have thanked heaven that an obvious acolyte signalled her whereabouts and explained her willingness to contribute to his cause. His wish that she worked for The Times comes across more as a pathetic child’s Santa Claus wish than an actual powerful expression of intent of the “who will rid me of this priest” kind.
Is there a public interest to know about this kind of exchange? A PN interest maybe, but public? Well, some experts in the planting of moles might argue that you have a right to know how pathetic a potential government leader is in his dealings with journalistic networks, certainly, but is that interest strong enough to outweigh the right to privacy? Are we being told that anything goes? Elsewhere, terrorism is the excuse to invade privacy rights − in Malta we are approaching the point where the interest of a political party to score points outweighs the right to privacy.
Finally Nathaniel asked a MaltaToday journalist − if you were in possession of this kind of e-mail exchange wouldn’t you publish it? Apparently not everyone would. I know for a fact that it was not only NET TV who was in possession of the exchange but also the virginal conservatives at The Times. The Times hesitated to publish them and only did so at a later stage when it became obvious that they would not be adding anything new to the fold (only they did because they inadvertently published more than even NET were prepared to publish). Still. Is the juiciness of a news item enough of a factor to override other issues? I doubt it.
Lessons to be learnt
What do we learn from SabrinaGate then? If we do not pry into this with partisan eyes we learn a few valuable truths. First of all − and we still need to see whether it will be tested in court − there is a prevalent assumption in the press that the right to privacy comes second to the value of a good scoop (especially if it is to the detriment of the political rivals). Secondly, we learn (as though we needed to) that strongly biased elements exist in all sectors of the journalistic field and that editors from PBS to RTK to The Times are consciously active in trying (unsuccessfully) to seem more neutral than Switzerland. True journalism is more than ever absent from the local scene and has been replaced by an agenda driven war of words that more often than not threatens to get nasty.
What to do? Trust no one except yourself. Ask questions of anything that you are told and above all be vigilant. The parliamentary accusations, the motions, the spin and the counter spin will be played out before of your incredulous eyes as each participant will double his efforts to try to prove to you that he’s on your (the citizen’s) side.
If you still have doubts just think of this quote from “Wag the Dog”: “Why does the dog wag its tail. Because the dog is smarter than the tail. If the tail were smarter it would wag the dog.”
With all the dogs that are barking mad around you, don’t be surprised if the only noise you made when you opened your mouth was “Woof”.
www.akkuza.com and this column will be going on a wedding sabbatical starting from next week. Don’t worry we’ll be back on the 20th November...