More than seven months after the so-called Association of Media Owners (AMO) was set up, all six media outlets which form part of the association refused to answer questions about their operations.
In spite of multiple reminders and a clearly stated deadline for responses, none of the outlets replied to questions about why the association went quiet after promising to, among other things, “ensure the advancement of good quality journalism and solidify the fundamental right of freedom of information.”
The six major media outlets which form the AMO are Allied Newspapers Ltd (Times of Malta), MediaToday (MaltaToday and Illum), Standard Publications (The Malta Independent), and the propaganda outlets owned by the Labour Party (ONE and L-Orizzont) and the Nationalist Party (NET).
To date, the AMO has no website, has not publicly stated who represents which company within the association or whether any lobbying was carried out, whether any financing was issued, whether any other media outlets have joined the association since it was first announced, and why every single one of its members has refused to answer questions from the independent press.
In fact, none of our questions about these details have been answered, a severe failure of transparency when considering that three of the companies in question publish Malta’s biggest mainstream media outlets who purport themselves to be standard-bearers of reputable journalism.
The only response noted by this website was from the Nationalist Party’s official spokesperson, who stated that a response will be provided following a clarification which was sought over a phone call a day before the stated deadline. No written response was received by this website at time of publication.
When the AMO was first quietly set up and announced in December of last year, this website sent questions to the chief editors of every AMO member. In spite of the fact that the AMO’s sole press release to date states that it was set up to establish dialogue with relevant stakeholders, it had failed to start doing so at home – the three chief editors of Times of Malta, MaltaToday, and the Malta Independent had all claimed to have not been consulted by the commercial decision-makers of their respective companies before the association was formed.
At the time, the above-mentioned editors had rejected the assertion that their membership within this association meant they were legitimising propaganda outlets like ONE and NET, though they failed to substantiate their arguments. They had also refused to provide information about who is representing them on this association.
All three editors went out of their way to state that their newsroom is free to scrutinise the AMO as they please, though none of them have done so to date. The editors had also failed to justify a discriminatory clause that forbids smaller media houses from joining the association.
Though the AMO’s initial announcement included promises to “ensure that any legislation enacted, or regulations issued by the government or authorities, will not endanger the prosperity or impair the welfare of its members,” it seems like little to no appetite exists for any kind of response to Malta’s declining press freedom.
In fact, we did not hear a peep from the association in relation to what was said about the government’s latest attempt at pretending that it is implementing anti-SLAPP legislation. As noted in a joint letter published by Repubblika, The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation, and aditus foundation, the government’s transposition of anti-SLAPP legislation – informally known as “Daphne’s law” – limits itself to the bare minimum.
SLAPPs – Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation – are frivolous lawsuits usually filed against journalists or activists who expose criminal wrongdoing committed by wealthy individuals, corporations, and even governments SLAPPs can be filed in jurisdictions which facilitate what amounts to an act of economic sabotage: though the person on the receiving end of the lawsuit did not commit a crime when exposing wrongdoing, the SLAPP nonetheless cripples them with legal costs and shakes their resolve with lengthy, time-consuming disputes.
SLAPPs can also be filed domestically, as was the case with the government’s decision to file over 40 frivolous court cases against The Shift News.
“The anti-SLAPP legislation lacks critical safeguards against domestic SLAPP cases. Defendants in Malta in cases which lack a cross-border element would therefore not be protected. This lacuna is significant, given the frequent abuse of the law that has earned Malta the dubious honour of being the country with the highest number of cases of SLAPPs,” the joint letter reads. You can read it in full here.
