Character assassination

   In 2003 former Labour leader Alfred Sant had filed a libel suit against The Times over a letter that was published in the newspaper soon after the EU referendum result in which a reader had expressed concern on what happened at the counting hall when the result was out.

Dr Sant had claimed the letter was defamatory in his regard and an attempt at character assassination.

The reader had expressed concern at the commotion that erupted at the counting hall when Dr Sant, accompanied by his deputies, had walked in claiming that partnership had won the referendum. The reader said Dr Sant was accompanied by a group of 20 or 30 people, who seemed to avoid the normal security checks when the Labour leader walked into the counting hall proper.

Dr Sant had insisted he arrived at the counting hall alone, accompanied only by his deputies and denied ever breaching security arrangements.

The court, however, decided otherwise and turned down Dr Sant’s two objections. In the first instance the court insisted politicians, like all public figures, should be allowed a greater margin of criticism. Subsequently it also refuted the argument that the letter was an attempt at character assassination. The decision was confirmed on appeal in 2009.

However, more significantly, the basis of the court’s decision was the notion that even if the facts on which the letter writer based his opinion were not wholly correct – Dr Sant did not arrive at the counting hall accompanied by 20 or 30 people – the fact that there was a commotion involving many people could have objectively led him to interpret the situation as being one of concern.

It was this court sentence that came to mind when reading the decision of the Press Ethics Commission that found Illum editor Julia Farrugia guilty in the case instituted by PBS chairman Joseph Mizzi.

Julia is not only a fellow journalist but also a former work colleague. I was her direct superior when editor of Illum until December 2008.

I am only saying this as a matter of record because what interests me more is the implication of the Commission’s judgment for the journalistic profession.

The story revolves around a video shot with two cameras showing Mr Mizzi in an apparent state of drunkenness while he was heading the Maltese delegation at the Eurovision song festival after-party in Dusseldorf this year.

The video shows Mr Mizzi holding on to a railing and falling to the ground before being escorted out.

This video made its way to Julia’s desk and she decided to publish it on the MaltaToday website and carry a story on her newspaper.

Julia’s story made the assumption that Mr Mizzi was drunk and headlined her article with the word ‘patata’. I would have been more cautious in reaching such a clear conclusion but it is unjust not to put Julia’s story in the perspective of the facts she had at hand.

Her assumption was not gratuitous. Any level-headed person seeing the video could easily assume that Mr Mizzi acted as he did because he was drunk. There may be other plausible theories: Mr Mizzi could have been drugged or could have suffered a bout of low blood pressure.

But Julia also had Mr Mizzi’s confirmation that on the night he drank a glass of wine and four shots of Jagermeister, which has an alcohol content of 35%.

To complicate matters Mr Mizzi had also told Julia that he had a stomach bug on the night, which again could have contributed to the apparent state of inebriation even if the level of drinks was on the low side.

The Commission itself noted that reporting Mr Mizzi’s unfortunate behaviour was a matter of public interest given his role as PBS chairman and the fact that his behaviour was conducted in a public place when acting in his official capacity.

However, it still chose to censure the journalist (grave censure) for assuming he was drunk. Funnily enough though, the Commission also noted that the real cause of Mr Mizzi’s behaviour remains unknown and is still subject to a police investigation after the PBS chairman claimed that his drink might have been spiked. And mind you the spiked drink theory only came to light after the story was published.

I wonder what would have happened had the video first appeared on YouTube where Mr Mizzi would not have had the opportunity accorded to him by the journalist to comment on his behaviour.

But it is the Commission’s final assertion that bothers me most, since it found Julia guilty of character assassination for bothering to ask the chairman whether his position was tenable.

Given the video at hand, it was perfectly legitimate for Julia to ask that question. As for character assassination, just like the letter writer in 2003, Julia made an interpretation of the facts at hand, which objectively could have led anyone to the same conclusion she reached. Furthermore, her interpretation was not factually refuted.

The fact that Mr Mizzi later resigned his post as PBS chairman cannot be used to justify the argument that it was the journalist’s intention from the start to force him out of his appointed role. If anything it was not the publication of the story that caused the final outcome – his resignation – but his behaviour, which till today remains unexplained. Somehow, it seems convenient to shoot the messenger rather than the message.

The Commission also posited two arguments: the video was edited to show Mr Mizzi fall twice when in fact he only fell once and he was not shown the video when contacted for a comment before the story was published.

I would have preferred a situation where Mr Mizzi was shown the video. It would have given him a better assessment of what Julia was seeing before commenting, more so when the video was forwarded to the Education Minister by the newspaper.

As for the Commission’s assertion that the video was doctored by Julia to show two falls, I think it was pretty obvious for those who saw the video that Mr Mizzi’s two falls were actually the same one repeated twice.

The fact that the video was shot by two cameras and at least one Maltese individual – who was heard swearing – was involved in its shooting has been used as an argument to substantiate the claim that Mr Mizzi was set up. If he was set up, it was nothing short of a despicable act and should not have found the blessing of any journalist.

But there is no proof – except the fact vouched for by his numerous friends that Mr Mizzi is a very nice person and not a drunkard by nature – that somebody or let alone the actual camera persons who did shoot the video had set him up.

Had this been the case it would be a story in its own right and one, which I am sure Julia would have covered as well.