When Prime Minister Abela addressed a Times of Malta Business Breakfast last September, he stated that today's media landscape is shaped by challenges where facts are questioned, disinformation spreads rapidly, and journalism faces both economic and digital pressures.
He also made other comments that, in light of this Labour administration under his helm, definitely jarred and sounded surreal.
In particular, he expressed his conviction that quality journalism remains essential for democracy in the country and that he intends to provide journalists with stronger safeguards against harassment and intimidation.
Perhaps he should be reminded of his reckless and incendiary outburst against independent media and activists when he launched a scathing attack on what he termed "forces of darkness" and "fake news blogs" at the time that he hastily tabled an amendment concerning magisterial inquiries.
Incidentally, that tabled amendment was nothing but another attempt to weaken access to justice and consolidate his government's hold on corruption investigations.
How can we believe his pledge to prioritise the protection of journalists, the strengthening of freedom of expression and the safeguarding of professional integrity when, in reality, he is only bent on continuing to discredit and demonise journalists?
Should we forget the many times he publicly accused journalists not coming from the Labour camp of being part of the 'establishment' and of conspiring with opposition officials, and the humiliation he reserved for any journalist who dared ask him valid and legitimate questions?
And how about the increasing challenges that media outlets in Malta face in accessing public information through the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act? The unprecedented appeals by over 30 government ministries and entities against a decision by the Information and Data Protection Commissioner, which ordered the disclosure of information on a particular public expenditure controversy, exemplify this trend.
Public bodies regularly deny FOI requests from the media on arbitrary grounds. Responses are often delayed until the last possible minute and usually followed by requests for extensions. When FOI requests are accepted, information is frequently incomplete.
If Robert Abela is true to his intentions, he should start by radically reforming the Public Broadcasting Services. For too many years now, PBS has been serving as a propaganda machine for the Labour Party. This is being done using public funds from our taxes to promote the Labour Party message above all else. One way of achieving this is by employing close friends of the government and the Labour Party in high-ranking positions within the PBS.
This situation is in stark contrast to what national broadcasting services should look like.
The duties of State-funded media include informing, educating, and entertaining the public while also contributing to a sense of national identity, ensuring diverse voices are heard, and providing universal access to information. They are expected to be independent of government interference, act as a public watchdog, and hold accountability to the public interest.
On another level, comprehensive legislative reform promised after the Daphne Caruana Galizia public inquiry remains unimplemented. The inquiry's recommendations, designed to strengthen media freedom and journalist protection, have languished despite repeated government assurances.
The prime minister should also endeavour to address the deficiencies in the manner in which Malta transposed the EU anti-SLAPP directive that omits protection against SLAPPs in domestic and criminal as well as administrative cases, does not align with recommendations for awareness-raising and training and does not include sufficiently dissuasive penalties for abusive plaintiffs, with a cap of €10,000 being ineffective against wealthy entities. The directive's focus on cross-border civil cases also fails to address the majority of SLAPPs, which are domestic, leaving a significant protection gap.
All this suppresses public scrutiny of matters of public interest.
Suppose Robert Abela feels responsible for safeguarding and fostering sustainable, critical, and high-quality journalism options that serve the public, rather than commercial media owners, shareholders, and advertisers. In that case, he should seriously consider going for State-supported journalism.
Such a measure goes a long way in supporting journalism that can monitor and hold accountable the institutions of government, commerce and civic life. He would also be honouring his proclaimed duty to ensure that journalism in Malta continues to thrive.
Europe has been particularly successful in developing a public policy framework that grants State subsidies to journalists and journalistic outlets that serve the public interest, advance accountability and transparency, and contribute to critical thinking and well-informed debate among citizens.
Conducted research shows that countries with well-regarded public-service broadcasters tend to have better-informed citizens.
We need to put a stop to our State-controlled media's systematic exclusion of stories and perspectives that are critical of the State and the systematic over-inclusion of stories and perspectives that are favourable to the State. Our State-controlled media has also occasionally brazenly produced false information that reflected positively on the government.
Trying to define what quality journalism means is akin to unwittingly participating in the age-old debate about what art is and what it is not. Quality seems to be a very subjective thing, depending on one's own interests, knowledge and preferences, and even politics.
A significant audience remains whose appetite for news and high-quality journalism is ever-growing. There are standards and codes of conduct that are essential to quality journalism.
A functioning democracy needs an informed public. Quality journalism remains the most accessible and, hopefully, the most trustworthy source for obtaining factual information.
If that kind of quality journalism disappears, we are all in serious trouble.
Dr. Mark Said is a lawyer