opinion

The right to write

Are we running the risk of losing pluralism not long after obtaining it, asks MIRIAM DUNN

Journalism as a profession was once again put under the microscope recently, in the wake of a seminar held focusing on this very subject.

One of the points brought up at the gathering in question was the standard of writing in our newspapers – a perennial lamentation - although this time it was the Maltese being penned that came in for a grilling.

This makes a change. Usually it is the English language publications that are taken to task over their poor spelling and grammar, at least once a year, anyway, at the BPC awards, which provide a platform annually for a collection of self-appointed critics to complain about the syntax errors they find in our newspapers.

Most of us journalists will weather this storm – we are used to being reprimanded like school children and having the content of our work ripped apart, sometimes by people whose motives are anything but that of improving the standard of reportage in Malta.

We have thick skins, cultivated more from years of insults than free lunches.

But back to the latest effort to elevate the standard of journalism in Malta. Of much more interest to most of us was the suggestion that journalists should be granted licences to work. Even more, that these could be linked to the standard of our writing or language skills.

I will not dwell on the argument that awarding a licence goes against the very principles of free speech and freedom of expression. This goes without saying and I cannot imagine how anyone who works in the media could possibly support such an idea.

Perhaps what I would add is that the concept – worrying at best - has even more serious undertones on an island this size which has battled for years to move away from censorship and intimidation towards glasnost-Mediterranean style and pluralism. Only recently getting there and at present, engulfed in a boycott-mania, running the risk of moving backwards again.

If we move into an era of licensing journalists, the question begs who would be responsible for giving them out? A so-called autonomous (yet government-appointed or related entity)? Great news for journalists on the wrong side of the political divide – after all, let’s not pretend cronyism doesn’t still exist.

And if licences are to be distributed, one presumes they can also be taken away again; hardly a climate conducive for investigative journalism, or reporters keen on lifting the lid on shady wheeling and dealing, or exposing blatant corruption.

Most of us will argue that we already have enough barriers in our way, ranging from libel threats, commercial pressures through to physical attacks. We have witnessed colleagues suspended or even sacked for trying to do their job, sometimes through an error of judgement, and on other occasions because their lords and masters appeared to feel the pressure from above, be it from the highest echelons of politics or business.

I’m sure that some of these people bent on improving the standards of our reporting have the best of intentions. Some. Others might be more interested in putting obstacles in the path of persevering journalists, or safeguarding their own interests. But that’s another story, which any reporter worth his weight would want to follow.

My own belief is that if ever the free market philosophy is needed, it is in the media. It is, after all, hardly a free-for-all at present – the safeguards are there for libels etc, as all editors know only too well. All of them weigh up their reports carefully before publishing – none has money to burn in court.

As to whether our language skills leave something to be desired, I would argue that we would be treading on very dangerous ground if a board or entity was given the responsibility of distributing licences at least partly on this basis.

Apart from the fact that it should be an editor’s job to select his staff and a reader’s decision as to whether the language in a paper is so appalling that he decides never to buy it again for that reason, there is one glaring misconception.

This is that journalists are hired at least in part for their language skills.

Of course people working in the media need to be able to read and write – that goes without saying. But their ability to articulate themselves in print is not usually top of the list as hiring criteria. Where a newshound or investigative journalist is concerned, an editor will be much more interested in his contacts’ book and talent for sniffing out a story than his track record in syntax or grammar.

Having been employed in the past with the sole brief of polishing up and in some cases rewriting journalists’ reports, I should know.

It was a thankless task, I will confess, which varied from dotting i’s and crossing t’s in some cases to making something more cryptic than a crossword clue understandable in others.

I self-titled myself one day, in martyr-mode, an unsung hero, contemplating the unfairness of it all, how I was labouring over reams of rambling paragraphs, making them good reading, only to be given none of the glory.

But that was my job. Of course, I would have liked the admiration and publicity that the journalist got, and might not have got without my help if the reader hadn’t been able to make head or tail of what he was writing. But I was philosophical, after all, I had no one to call me up and tell me who was about to resign, who stalked out of an executive party meeting or who was about to be appointed chairman of some parastatal or another.

Nowadays my contacts book is a bit better and I get a bit of glory every once in a while. I also hope my language skills aren’t too bad. But I don’t expect to be licensed for that. I expect to be able to write, while anyone wants to publish me, even if what I write is incorrect, uncorrect or anything else for that matter.