European solutions must be found for SLAPP – IGM Chairman

European solutions must be to introduce robust anti-SLAPP legislation to protect media houses, newly elected Institute for Maltese Journalists Chairman Yannick Pace has told The Malta Independent.

In an interview published today, Pace was asked to comment on Minister Owen Bonnici’s decision to reject an amendment put forward by the Opposition to include such legislation in the Media and Defamation Bill following the legal advice from four separate experts found that such regulation would run against EU directives.

This has been disputed by the Opposition, with both sides disputing each other’s conclusions of EU Commissioner Vera Jourová comments on the matter. “As you pointed out, both sides have presented legal opinions and opposing views on whether such legislation is necessary. Local media organisations must be given guarantees that they will be able to do their work and not face financial ruin because of SLAPP lawsuits and we will definitely be pushing for more safeguards,” Pace said.

“I definitely feel that a European solution should be sought. I also believe in the Front Against Censorship’s proposal to amend the Media and Defamation Act in order to limit economic damages on local media houses,” he continued.

SLAPP lawsuits refer to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, when entities shop around for foreign jurisdictions to bring lawsuits worth exorbitant financial damages against individuals in an attempt to silence and intimidate. The legal fees associated in fighting such a lawsuit are enough to force an individual back down.

Such lawsuits have been initiated by Pilatus Bank, specifically the case that was filed by the Lawrence group, on behalf of Pilatus Bank in Arizona against assassinated journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia for damages up to $40 million, and the legal letters issued by Shillings Law Firm on behalf of Pilatus last October against Maltese media houses.

In the same interview, which covered a range of issues in the media landscape, Pace also spoke about the effect the term ‘fake news’ is having on the media landscape.

From the loss of revenue brought about through the internet age and the advent of fake news, the free press across the globe is facing a number of mounting challenges. Maltese media houses, while admittedly suffering from the same issues, has also begun to face its own unique obstacles with the threats of SLAPP lawsuits and the death of one of the country’s most prominent journalists. Julian Bonnici met with the new IGM Chairman YANNICK PACE, a journalist at Malta Today, to discuss the issues.

After the Media and Defamation Bill was enacted into law, Minister Owen Bonnici said that the government would now seek to regulate the journalism profession itself, with what is believed to be a code of ethics. Do you think it is possible to regulate the media without stifling free speech? And are there any particular proposals you feel should be introduced and any proposal you feel should be avoided?

I agree that there should be a code of ethics because it is the adherence to journalistic principles that defines the profession.

Even though not everyone who voices an opinion in a public forum is a journalist, everyone should be free to express themselves as they see fit. A code of ethics should encourage a journalistic process that sets a standard.

Nobody can stop someone from publishing their opinion or their own interpretation of certain events, but I believe we can reach an understanding of what standards we should expect.

The previous IGM council had started working on a code of ethics and had organized a national conference, which was attended by representatives and editors from all Malta’s media organisations. The code of ethics was not completed. However, we will be looking to finish this and ideally have it endorsed by local media houses as soon as possible.

As a general rule, I think we should avoid situations where we must decide who has a right to express themselves and who doesn’t. Rather we should be encouraging good journalism and making sure that the public understands the inherent differences in the various types of content they encounter on a daily basis.

Is self-regulation an option?

If by self-regulation you mean coming to an agreement on what should be standard and holding ourselves to it, then yes. I don’t believe there should be an outside force regulating the profession – we need to navigate these waters together as a journalistic community.

‘Fake news’ is no longer a buzzword and has become deeply entrenched in the global perspective of the media. There are concerns that the word is now being used to delegitimise legitimate media houses and articles. Do you agree?

I think it is undeniable that politicians and those in power today have more tools that they can use to send a message or do damage control after a damning story is released. In the past, they could send a statement back to the paper and hold a press conference to rebut a story. With social media there are many more options and it is far easier for politicians to develop counter-narratives that suit them better, so it’s not just the term fake news that can be used to discredit the media. An easy to watch video posted on Facebook that oversimplifies a more nuanced story in favour of the politician is just as effective at discrediting the media without using the phrase fake news.

I do believe that the phrase can be used to discredit the media and not necessarily intentionally. I feel that the term introduces an element of laziness in the way we criticise a piece of writing we don’t agree with. It allows people to dismiss articles without engaging in a debate about the merits of the argument. If you don’t agree, that’s fine, but explain to me why you don’t agree and what you have found to be contentious. Give whoever is on the other side the opportunity to rebut your argument. In a world that is becoming more complex, less nuance isn’t what we should be aiming for.

Admittedly, as surveys indicate, trust in the media is dropping. What can media houses do to rebuild this trust?

I think there is definitely a need for people to understand how the media works and for them to be able to appreciate what good journalism is. We must work harder to show society that our first loyalty is to citizens and the truth. We need to be consistent and fair, and act as a point of reference for people trying to make sense of what they see happening around them.

I also personally believe that the media needs to readapt to the internet age. Our relationship with the media has gone from a paper we look at over breakfast in the morning, to one of many voices running through our newsfeed, all of which are competing to make us feel good or triggering reactions and emotions so that we keep coming back for more. The media, in my view, needs to learn

how find a balance between telling people what they need to know when they need to know it, and also acting a source of entertainment.

The importance of ‘clicks’ to a modern media house has given rise to greater sensationalism, resulting in a post-now check later attitude.

Do you believe that the media houses themselves partly responsible for this erosion of trust?

In my opinion, media houses, and their business model have struggled to cope with a fastchanging internet landscape. This has eaten away at their relevance and their profitability and in this respect, I think that the local media has done to cope with a new reality, and to a certain extent more of a demand for sensationalism.

But ultimately, I believe people want content that interests them.

I think sensationalism grows in the absence of having the time and resources to create interesting content that would be worth the same number of clicks.

SLAPP lawsuits remains a significant issue facing media houses today. The Minister, it appears, does not want to introduce antiSLAPP legislation following the legal advice from four experts. This has been disputed by the opposition, with both parties presenting conflicting opinions on the matter. What is your stance on the issue? Will you be pushing for the introduction of such legislation?

As you pointed out, both sides have presented legal opinions and opposing views on whether such legislation is necessary. Local media organisations must be given guarantees that they will be able to do their work and not face financial ruin because of SLAPP lawsuits and we will definitely be pushing for more safeguards.

I definitely feel that a European solution should be sought. I also believe in the Front Against Censorship’s proposal to amend the Media and Defamation Act in order to limit economic damages on local media houses.

Political party media often results in divisive and conflicting opinions on the same issue. In many countries, political parties are not allowed to own broadcasting stations. Should a similar model be applied to Malta? And if possible, can you explain your position.

I think that every country has its own unique context. So, yes, you could say that other countries don’t allow parties to have their own stations, but then again, other countries don’t have a 96% electorate - and many foreign news organisations have an inherent political bias in any case, such as Fox News.

While I agree that party stations tend to be selective and biased in the way they report current affairs, they are also a big part of Malta’s media landscape. Moreover, having a clear political bias means that the agenda is obvious and clear for all to see.

I think we should encourage a more diverse media ecosystem, as well as adherence to higher journalistic standards, rather than trying to silence one type of station or the other. The nature of the internet means that you are never going to be able to stifle the voices you don’t want to hear. The only option is competing and offering a better product.

Regardless of who is in government, state-owned media in Malta regularly becomes an extension of the central administration’s PR machine. Do you agree? What can be done to ensure greater independence from political interference? And is this an area you are looking to pursue?

I think that we should always strive for more impartiality. I think that TVM could do with having more autonomy as the Broadcasting Authority has. It could become more like the BBC is in the UK for example.

Given the financial limitations in the country, do you think the government should start looking into funding programs for media houses based in Malta?

In an ideal world, the independent media would be considered as important for democracy as the law courts, with a similarly appropriate budget dedicated to making sure it can function properly.

So, in principle, yes, I agree with helping media houses and ensuring their long-term survival – provided of course that their impartiality and independence is not affected in any way. On the other hand, one could argue that they are a business like any other and should reinvent themselves rather than sit and cry about their lost revenue.

As with other ideas of this nature, consultation and research are essential before deciding on a way forward.

The death of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia shocked the country with many expressing remorse regardless of where they were on the political divide. This sentiment has eroded over the past 10 months with some politicians, such as Jason Micallef, even openly mocking her last words. Caruana Galizia, while admittedly controversial, was subject to various insults from politicians from both the PN and PL. Do you believe that more should be done with regards to politicians and the discourse they use when engaging with the media?

In short, yes, I think it is unacceptable for journalists to be singled, out or to have abuse hurled at them. This is especially true when we ’re talking about politicians and people holding office – in my books, this is an abuse of the power that they hold. While everyone has the right to express themselves, people should also be responsible for what they say or write, and if necessary be held accountable, just as much as journalists should.

Daphne’s murder has deeply affected the nation and left a permanent mark on the majority of the population.

At a time when I think many are still coming to terms with what has happened I think the last thing we should be doing is mocking and attacking each other, because doing so is going to prevent us from having the nuanced discussion that the country deserves, not only about Daphne’s legacy but also about the consequences of her assassination.

Someone has never been killed because of what he or she wrote in Malta and the fact that there are still so many unknowns about who killed her and why has undoubtedly left a mark on the journalistic community.

As a journalist, I can’t help but wonder whether writing a story, or indeed, what sort of story will result in the same fate.

This niggling feeling of fear at the back of a journalist’s mind is a very dangerous thing and it does not bode well for free speech when journalists could be thinking twice about what they write or even what stories to investigate for fear of being blown up.