There is only one way in which Dr George Vella’s speech in Parliament on 15 May can be interpreted. Having heard that speech, and having considered the obligation of each Member of Parliament under the Maltese Constitution and the European Convention, I have concluded that Dr Vella intended to rap the knuckles of his fellow MPs, rather than those of journalists. Interpreting his speech to be a criticism or warning to journalists or media stakeholders would place his government in a very bad light indeed.

He spoke of the brotherly feeling that is found amongst MPs and said he hoped that this would continue to grow and lead to a method of effective scrutiny. He said he wished that criticism to be made positively – that, rather than being destructive, he wanted it to be constructive. His words did not specifically say that the Opposition or the media should not criticise. On the contrary, he indicated that his government will be encouraging scrutiny of its work through legislative measures.

I am unable to understand what he meant when he called for politicians to rein in the media or control their media or when he said that the media ought not to be used to foment conflict, to underhandedly create opinions or public discussion or to incite, when what he really and truly meant was that he expects limits to be placed on the media’s expression. My respect for journalists and the media, as well as the importance of their role in encouraging public debate, do not allow me to provide any such interpretation. I believe that he would not provide such an interpretation either, as he said that he does recognise the media as being an important pillar of any democracy.

And maybe few of us realise the importance that journalists play in our life as a nation. The rights and obligations that they exercise have been repeatedly described as a cornerstone of any democracy. Journalists are there because we – the people – have a right to know and we, especially I, expect each and every journalist to find out everything and anything that the public ought to know about the work of the government, the Opposition, the political parties, the politicians and any person who has a government function, is a public figure or is exposed to public opinion. Of course I want to be spared the details of their private life, but I certainly want to know how they are exercising the trust that has either been placed in them or that they expect. 

This is not to say that I want journalists to provide me with information that is untrue or unverified. Even in the exercise of their obligations to the public, journalists have responsibilities. But any journalist worthy of the name is the one who not only reports the rhetoric of politicians, but who also boldly seeks to scrutinise that rhetoric in the light of the actions of those same politicians. Journalists provide us with a way of discovering what is happening and consequently provide us with information on which we can form an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of politicians. 

The media also provides politicians with the information they so badly need: what we, the people, think. Printed media, social media, television and radio provide space for those wishing to express their own opinions and preoccupations on, or scrutiny of, issues that are of interest to the public and help form public opinion. They help us participate in free political debate and, when heard, also feed into political thought or government action.

Dr Vella called on his fellow MPs to measure their words and actions as this will affect the public. I cannot but agree with him but, more than that, we the public expect journalists to provide us with information and opinions on the words expressed and actions taken by MPs, so that we can then judge them accordingly.