The Media Reform Initiative has voiced its disappointment over the final report of the Committee of Experts on Media appointed by the government.

The report, they claim, is ill-equipped to create the environment the government promised, especially given its release six years post the silencing of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. This incident not only muted Galizia but also sent a stark warning to other media stakeholders engaged in public interest journalism.

The Committee’s proposals pose multiple challenges for journalists, from threats to their work to their personal safety. Despite receiving valuable insights from media freedom experts, the report fails to shield journalists from SLAPP legislation’s capricious threats.

The Committee merely suggested the establishment of another committee to decide how PBS Ltd should operate for the public’s benefit rather than the government’s. Furthermore, the recommendations do not strongly defend the public’s freedom of expression rights.

The Media Reform Initiative points out that the Committee’s final report, though stemming from the recommendations of the Public Inquiry into Galizia’s assassination, seems to overlook the guidance provided by the Inquiry. Instead of offering an all-encompassing review, the report provides tepid recommendations restricted to areas the government is willing to explore.

The 16-page report, which mirrors the amendments to the Bills proposed in parliament in 2022, represents a missed chance to drive laws that protect everyone’s right to participate in public forums and reinforce press freedom.

The Media Reform Initiative highlighted multiple shortcomings:

1. Access to Public Information: The Committee did not offer any meaningful recommendations about the Freedom of Information Act. This oversight continues to hinder journalists from accessing information from public bodies.
2. Ignoring International Advice: Despite obtaining recommendations from international press freedom bodies, the Committee dismissed some of the most critical suggestions without offering reasons.
3. Safety Protocols for Journalists: The Committee’s recommendations seem to be heavily influenced by the government and the police, neglecting the distrust journalists have in the system, leaving them exposed to various threats.
4. Public Media Financing: The report discusses public media financing but fails to address maintaining media independence and pluralism.
5. Reform of Public Service Media: Instead of concrete steps, another ad hoc committee has been proposed, despite international criticism directed at Malta.
6. Lack of Information on Media Council: The report mentions the consideration of establishing a Media Council but provides no further details, leaving many questions unanswered.

The Media Reform Initiative stresses that any reform impacting the freedom of expression and press freedom must undergo open public consultation. They also acknowledge and hope for the parliamentary opposition’s motion to be accepted by the government.

Additionally, they are hopeful about the government’s political pledge to release a White Paper on legislative media reform. Both steps, if executed genuinely and not just as mere formalities, could play a pivotal role in fortifying Malta’s democracy.

Do you agree with the activists?