The Times of Malta has spent years telling everyone else about transparency, accountability and conflicts of interest.
So why does the newspaper appear to have a different standard when it comes to its own journalists?
Professor Simon Mercieca has raised a serious claim concerning the financial support of a specific Times of Malta journalist by the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation, including the question of whether the Foundation is contributing towards that journalist’s salary.
Simon Mercieca
If that is the case, readers deserve something very simple: a clear disclosure.
The journalist’s articles should be marked prominently as “Sponsored by the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation” or, at the very least, clearly identify the Foundation’s financial involvement.
Why?
Because Times of Malta itself has no problem identifying sponsored content when the sponsor is a hotel or another commercial organisation.
If a hotel pays for an article, the reader is told that it is sponsored.
Fair enough.
But if a foundation is financially supporting the journalist producing the journalism, why should the reader receive less information?
Isn’t that the same basic principle of transparency?
The Times of Malta cannot demand that others declare their financial interests while treating its own arrangements as nobody else’s business.
So there are really only a few questions the editor needs to answer:
Is the journalist financially supported by the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation?
Daphne Caruana Galizia
If so, why isn’t that financial relationship clearly disclosed on all his articles?
And perhaps most importantly:
If a hotel has to be identified as the sponsor of sponsored journalism, why shouldn’t a foundation funding a journalist receive the same treatment?
Editorial independence is not a magic phrase that makes financial relationships disappear.
If there is nothing improper about the arrangement, then disclosure should be easy.
Put the disclosure on the article. Let the reader decide.
That is what transparency looks like.
