Responsible and irresponsible reporting
It was completely irresponsible – if not all out dangerous – for certain sections of the Maltese media to name the alleged middleman in the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder investigation yesterday.
Not only does this risk foiling investigations, it could also derail any deal that may be on the table in return for information on the murder that has seized not only Malta’s, but the world’s, attention.
The Malta Independent has been in possession of certain information and names related to the investigation (including that published yesterday) for some time now, but we have chosen to exercise caution and withhold publication so as to not jeopardise the investigation.
There are times when the press should hold back, and this in our opinion, was very clearly one of them. In fact, this newspaper has made the same argument before.
Early yesterday morning, Times of Malta reported that a suspected middleman in the plot to assassinate Daphne Caruana Galizia could be offered a presidential pardon in return for revealing the mastermind behind the brutal attack. That story did not contain the name of the alleged middleman.
This decision to publish the article was questionable to begin with, as it could have put some serious spokes in the investigation’s wheels. This newsroom, after careful consideration, opted to report the Times’ story, given that it had already been placed – for better or for worse – in the public domain.
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat confirmed the story later in the day. Addressing reporters, Muscat said that after the man’s arrest during a police raid carried out as part of a money laundering investigation last Thursday, he had offered to provide information about the assassination in exchange for a blanket pardon for all crimes he had committed in the past. Muscat then said that he had given his assurance that, if the information provided held water in court, this presidential pardon would be signed, sealed and delivered.
That Muscat actually spoke about the situation perhaps means that this particular individual’s family is already under protection and that the alleged mastermind is being kept under close watch – or at least this newsroom hopes that this is the case.
Muscat also appealed to the media to exercise ‘prudence’, as the case is not yet closed. He said that the person was under strict protection and still being spoken to by the police.
However, just after that, MaltaToday, for reasons best known to itself, went ahead and took the misguided decided to publish the name of the middleman in question.
This decision was both irresponsible and dangerous, and led some other media houses to follow suit.
The Malta Independent, however, felt that this was a step too far – way too far – and refrained from publishing the name even though that, too, was by then in the public domain.
Publishing the name of the middleman who was seeking a pardon in exchange for information on the mastermind behind the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, first of all, tips off the mastermind, who is presumably still not under arrest. This would obviously give that person ample time to go into hiding now that push has evidently come to shove, or to potentially threaten the middleman or his family.
If the mastermind is not in custody, then this alleged middleman and his family are in manifest danger, and so is the information he is promising to give.
The danger, however, is far more serious than that. If this is indeed the middleman, or one of them, and he is indeed telling the truth, then according to the prime minister, the pardon would apply to all cases in which he was involved – provided that he spills the beans on them too.
Publishing his name, therefore, could make this man the target of anyone else with whom he may have been involved in crime, and not just the mastermind behind the Caruana Galizia murder. And if that happens, or if he decides to clam up, there is also a real risk that his information may never see the light of day.