The latest initiative taken by the Institute of Maltese Journalists to revive a code of ethics for journalists is one that deserves to be commended. But unfortunately, the text put up for discussion during a conference sponsored by the Speaker of the House of Parliament, lacks vision and far from what one would expect to read in this day and age.

To start with, the proposed ‘revamped’ code suggests that journalists who persist with questions using weapons such as the telephone and the microphone should be classified under ‘harassment’.  In a time when we are witnessing a good chunk of the political class and other powers within society across the globe, overwhelmingly running roughshod and tainting the noble profession with corruption, lies and misconduct, one should encourage journalists to probe, investigate and report relentlessly rather than discourage them by offering a code of ethics which, if it were to be legally binding, could put an end to investigative journalism as we know it. 

Of course journalists should always be well-mannered and adopt an orderly approach when interviewing people in public office or others who hold a standing within society, but due to the fact that not everyone is forthcoming when confronted with hard questions, there shouldn’t be a getaway clause for such individuals who prefer to remain untouchable.

An extract from the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics in the United States beacons the spirit and tone our code should carry: “Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.” What a strong, supportive and promising phrase to have in one’s ethical portfolio.

Other sections of the local code of ethics under review delve into matters which do not pertain to journalists at all. This may be due to a lack of understanding of the profession itself.

Because in Malta we have a knack for multiple roles and because we are experts in how to wiggle out of flagrant cases in conflict of interest that would leave the great Houdini astound, it is clear that the authors of the code tried to come up with a one size fits all document.

For example, the code being proposed binds presenters of current affairs programmes with the same way a newsroom journalist should act. It even suggests that it is the journalists’ responsibility to make sure that guests on a talk show are given the opportunity to reply to viewers’ reactions received via sms.

The proposed code also tries to fit in bloggers and opinion writers within the same code, when it should be crystal clear to anyone who ever worked in a newsroom that the two are totally different kettle of fish. In doing so, the proposed code of ethics will be limiting field journalists in their daily work.

This news organisation has made its position clear during the well attended and very well organised seminar on the matter. We will continue in our efforts to see a proper and functional code of ethics for journalists in place, one which empowers journalists to seek and report the truth.