Lou (can't) Read

Part II of the J’accuse analysis  of the programme that signalled the death of investigative journalism in Malta on the 22nd February 2010 – Bondiplus “Thinking Allowed”.

The Research Gap

Last Monday’s Bondiplus brought to evidence some gaping holes in the preparatory research work that usually precedes the show. Both presenter and guest at times seemed either embarassingly unacquainted with the subject matter or oblivious to very obvious facts that could have been unearthed with the slightest of research efforts.

i. The Guild of the Dumb

Like some latter-day John the Baptist, Father Joe had prepared the way with his allegation that the mainstream media had remained silent on the issue under discussion. Bondi turned out to be a willing accomplice what could only be perceived as either (a) an attempt at trying to inflate the pertinence of his only guest on the programme or (b) an attempt to deviate public attention from other possible perspectives on the subject matter. We were thus handed the “ungilded silence” theory once more – this time live on TV a Monday.

There were two references to Sunday paper articles on the programme. One was to an article by Toni Abela on Illum (the non-scoop) and the other was by Fr Joe Borg who was so mortally offended by an article on it-Torca that he forgot the name of the perpetrator (Petronius Melitensis – Peter of Malta – is latin so difficult for a priest?). Other than that zilch. Nada. Nothing.

A quick runthrough of the Sunday papers available for the investigating journalist on the 21st February 2010 produces the following:

Sunday Times

– “The Magistrate Debate” – Editorial

– Roamer’s Column (dealing with the issue and Commission of Administration of Justice)

The Malta Independent on Sunday

– “J’accuse: Father Borg’s Guild of the Dumb” – Jacques Renè Zammit

– “When is it right to name and shame?” – Pamela Hansen

– “Psst? Did you hear the latest?” – Josanne Cassar (14th Feb)

– “J’accuse: The Private Lives of Saints” – Jacques René Zammit (7 Feb)

MaltaToday

– Bondi was Consuelo’s Dinner Guest

– “Guess who’s coming to dinner” – Saviour Balzan

– “Private lives, public figures and structural insanity” – David Friggieri

– “Beware of the Blog” – Raphael Vassallo

That is just the Sunday papers – and not the news  reports. Just on this publicly available blog we had dealt extensively with the issues asked by Father Joe Borg. Forget Bondi for a moment – he seems to have a very personal, unprofessional approach to what is a paper and what is not (probably depending on convenience), but Fr Joe Borg could not claim to not know of the replies to his blog. I posted a comment on his blog pointing out that a number of replies to his questions were available here – unless he ignores comments on his blog (which would not make it much of a blog) I cannot but think that it did not pay him to engage in the argument.

Forget J’accuse, we are after all only a tiny, tiny cog in the machine. Here is a piece of the Sunday Times editorial:

The last thing The Times or The Sunday Times would want to do is print a rumour without going through the painstaking process of ensuring it is true. This principle is generally applied even if there is a risk of losing a scoop to another medium. But truth in itself cannot be the sole criterion for publication. The character of the medium is another important consideration, as well as whether the issue is deemed to be in the public interest. We would maintain that – as a rule – what a judge, magistrate, politician or whoever does in his or her private life is not a matter that should enter the public domain. So it is highly unlikely we would ever feature a story about marital problems or extra-marital affairs.

Still thinking it is irrelevant? Here is Father Joe in his latest post-bondiplus blog on the silence of the media: “The mainstream media have a role to play: a role of investigation and commentary. This role is being abjectly abdicated.” To which we can only reply: absolutely absurd.

Lou Bondi and Father Joe revelled in the idea that it is only Father Joe who wrote about the issue. Hell, they even forgot Alison Bezzina’s orchestrated piece backing Daphne’s battle with the law. Who does it pay to claim that the media are silent on the issue? Whatsmore what issue are we really talking about?

ii. The Issue

As I said earlier the purported aim of the programme was to examine the principles that apply to the current issue. When Fr Borg and Lou Bondi scrolled through every inch of print on Sunday their measure of relevance must surely have been the ethical questions being tackled in the programme. Their criterion that ultimately dismisses everything but the Father from being relevant to the programme and its discussion baffles belief. Not even “Charles Cauchi” could wiggle his way out of this one (yes, she’s back).

The only reaction we will get (if we get one) is predictable. Lou will probably dismiss this either as (a) an attempt of this blog and its owner to get place on the MSM or (b) claim in his most recent style that he does not consider this to be a paper (or MaltaToday -as we saw in his rabid reaction to the pertinent questions posed by Matthew Vella). Of course he cannot say the same about the Times but his “friend” has seen to that. Here’s Daphne commenting about Ray Bugeja:

“It is not just the magistrate and the politician who have compromised themselves by consorting with the people from Super One, various newspaper editors, and certain other politicians and magistrates/judges. It is also their guests who have compromised themselves by accepting. This is becoming more obvious by the day. Take the editor of The Times, for example (a man I respect and for whom I worked – [Ed. Note: Ray Bugeja]). It turns out that he accepted an invitation to dinner at the home of the magistrate and Robert Musumeci – not a large buffet, but an intimate thing round the dining-room table.

This makes it more difficult for him to adopt a clinical approach to investigating either of them when the need arises. Even if he succeeds in overcoming the inevitable crisis of conscience (’I was a guest in your home and now I must go after you and examine whether you are up to no good’), public perception will be beset by question marks.

See? J’accuse is not the press. MaltaToday is straight out of the Benny Hill Academy and the Times? Well the Times is tainted because one of its editors is dining with the enemy. But hang on! Didn’t Lou Bondi also attend dinner parties at the Scerri Herrera residence? What makes Lou so different? In his rabid reply to Matthew Vella, Lou omitted to answer this question and instead chose to point out that even Saviour Balzan was a guest at some point. There you go. Wheels within wheels within wheels. Which still doesn’t change the question: What makes Lou Bondi so different?

The selective manner in which the guest at the programme was chosen and the material from the press was taken bade no good for the impartiality of the programme. There are two possibilities: either intentional distortion of the facts or hopeless research work. Both are a serious indictment on a programme whose English slogan is “Thinking Allowed”.

iii. The Plea of Ignorance

In between clutching at straws looking for concrete examples while ignoring the elephant in the room, Father Joe Borg twice began his sentences with “jiena ma nafx il-kodici tal-etika”. He was rather unprepared on the subject matter at hand – the least one would have expected ws a quick readthrough of the code of ethics of the professions under journalistic review. How can you be asking yourself how far a journalist can go if you fail to even read the basic texts that are relevant to the programme?

Then there was Lou who laboured under the impression that Daphne’s “blog” began on the 29th January. It was a lapsus noticeable only by the perfectionist geeks that are real bloggers. I admit this is an easily dismissable objection  because most of the audience has become sufficiently undiscerning and used to mediocrity not to give a flying activity in intercourse about it all. Lou’s attention to detail on the issue of blogs and blogging was minimal. It is evident he had absolutely no idea of the difference between a blog and a post. Coming from any other person this would have been excusable and the Charles Cauchi’s of this world would make a meal of this. On this programme that was a partial indictment of all things blog errors of this kind mattered.

iv. The Allegations

Lastly on this research issue, the programme panel spoke a number of times about the “allegations” made by Daphne Caruana Galizia that would have serious consequences if proven. We got a list of potential criminal sections Daphne could be accused and punished for but nowhere – NOWHERE – in the programme was there the slightest hint of a conrete list of the allegations. It is another pertinent issue to the use of the medium, the timing of the accusations and the ethics of the journalist vs those of the magistrate.

Just to give a small example, were Lou and Joe referring to the allegations of “talcum powder” being present at parties? If not why not? If so, how come we did not get this more clearly? Why are they performing the huge disservice of riding on the vagueness of the accusations?

Read Part I here: Blind Men’s Bluff