Lou Bondi has been forced to justify his choice of interviewing Norman Lowell after the BA Authority accused Bondiplus of violating the Broadcasting Act and subsidiary legislation aimed at ensuring the promotion of racial equality.
Presenter Lou Bondì insisted yesterday he chose to interview Mr Lowell in order to delve beyond his thoughts on illegal immigration and help the Maltese understand the full force of the horrors of racism. “I am convinced that the best way of dealing with objectionable ideas is to discuss them, investigate them and expose them…,” he said. (Times)
Well. If the best way of dealing with objectionable ideas is to discuss them, investigate them and expose them I guess we should expect many more discussions on a large number of PLPN policies in the coming weeks. Of course we did not expect Lou to inform the BA that Norman was the only subject he could think of and that the investigative minefield (administrative law, tendering procedures, interested party amnesia, party interests etc) posed by the awarding of the BWSC contract was too complicated a task when compared to just putting a man with objectionable ideas on prime time national TV and letting him talk.
This nonsense of fining, shutting up and gagging people who have different ideas must stop. If our only way of countering their arguments is by obliterating them from view then we have reached a sad point in our society. Let him speak I say. The day we elect a crazed right winger to parliament then only one thought comes to mind: we deserve it.
I cannot fathom how we can talk of representative democracy on one hand and then engineer the rules to twist the representation to obliterate ugly elements. By that standard I’d like to see less and less of PLPN in the current format: how about defining them as objectionable too?
Lou is guilty of contributing heavily to the mediocrity of national discourse and engagement. He should not pay for this via some ridiculous assault on the freedom of expression. He cannot use this as his defence but frankly I think it is much stronger than his objectionable nonsense.
***
ADDENDUM
I had almost missed this one since I stopped checking on this column some time back but hey, curiosity pays. Another opinion on the Bondiplus Lowell farce.
This time it’s a friend of Lou’s doing the run down – and you can tell the extreme difficulty Joe had in constructing a critical argument to blame PBS, the producers (not Lou?) or anyone but Lou (you just have to love the “presenters of lesser stature than Lou” (does he mean shorter?))….
Anyways here is what Media Expert (Fr) Joe Borg had to say about the programme. Do note – PBS must publicly apologise for the mistake. Lou, the poor man, is just a cog of certain stature in the big wheels of the machinery.
What irked me most about the programme was its lack of context which could have perhaps justified the hurt caused because of some overriding public interest. A friend of mine smsed me with the question: is there a survey going on now? His is a very cynic position. Many people will accuse Lou of selling himself for ratings. I do not share this position. I am sure that the reasons Lou had for producing the programme were good and praiseworthy. I think he did it believing the programme would discredit Lowell. I do not doubt his intention but I also believe that he was totally off the mark.
I fear that now presenters of lesser stature than Lou would invite Lowell to their programme as this is how the media circus works. They would not be as prepared as Lou was and consequently Lowell would fare better in such programmes. This would give Lowell more publicity.
Lowell is a nobody. Election result after election result showed that he has not succeeded in riding the xenophobic attitude of many Maltese. He has been given his fair share of exposure which could have then been justified by the argument that people had to be informed about the monstrosity of his ideas. To-day, I think, that argument is no longer valid. He is just a fringe politician spouting hate. There is no place for the propagation of hate on public service TV.
PBS should take an editorial decision that Lowell would not be given coverage on the station barring exceptional circumstances due to some overriding public interest.
Would I be asking too much if I urge PBS to publicly apologise for this mistake?
7 replies on “The Right to think Racist”
We get the politicans and the presnters we deserve. It’s not so much the choice of guest which I find worrying, it’s more the lack of any attempt to have an interesting programme, with a bit more research etc…. As it is, the audience did not see or hear anything which hasn’t been in the public domain for yonks…there was nothing particularly innovative in what was broadcast, so what was the point ?
You’re right Claire. The debate, if anything should not be censored but injected with real investigative quality. Lou chose the easy way out – just getting the jester on stage and letting him ring his bells and lead the show. Lowell is aware of the jester appeal – witness his “jidhaq il-gahan, jidhaq ghax hemm Lowell” spiel.
Should it be true that unpleasant things should not be expressed because they are unplesant then we would never have had Heath Ledgers legendary psychopathic joker, nor would be have had the beautifully constructed peodophile Humbert Humbert. It is very easy to hide behind the false security of ‘established’ truths, we need to be able to question even that which would seem unquestionable. Otherwise the world would be flat and the Australians would have fallen off.
@ Jacques …yes, the programme would have been of roughly the same quality research-wise if Spiru Sant had been invited, or the sweet Tal-Farfett man….and now there will be this farcical freedom of expression tizzy and we will continue getting more of the same..our fault for watching it though
whilst I can support the argument to defend the man’s right to freedom of speech.
I consequentially find it ironic when the Times of Malta habitually censors my comments and remarks that do not tow the party line…
and so when in reply to Joe Borg’s blog I left a comment about the need to supply Norman the Great with some strong psychopharmaceuticals rather than a pedestal to fan his delusions of granduer it mysteriously dissapeared in the digital “interweb”.
Ahhh life’s little ironies ;)
I mean this in all sincerity – how did Fr Joe Borg end up being one of Malta’s pre-eminent media ‘experts’?
As for the Bondiplus in question – I watched it on di-ve (a site which looks like it was designed on Geocities in 1996) and thought it was piss-poor.
Bondi calling Norman Lowell up on Robert Johnson was a particular high point – his equivalent to Jeremy Paxman’s infamous Michael Howard grilling – NOT.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk)
I doubt any more than 5% of Bondi’s audience had ever heard of the bluesman.
What next, facing down the KKK by asking them about Toni Morrison, or demonstrating how wrong Al Qaeda are by claiming they know nothing of the French New Wave?
When you need a “spike” for your show, get Norman, it never fails, as long as the morons keep watching.
Fanon, if Fr.Joe Borg was just Joe Borg he wouldn’t be an expert.