Tags
Related Posts
Share This
Dissect Dissected I
Where we start by considering the subject of the program and conclude that blogs need no validation from the mainstream media.
I am going to skip the obvious and will not repeat the whole bias business on my part. It should suffice to say that in reviewing a program on which I was an interviewee I might not be 100% objective in my appreciation. Nevertheless…
1. The Subject
Before we the geek crowd go on the usual assault of “x’ghandu x’jaqsam mal-blogs” and “kif bilfors iridu jitkellmu dwar Defni” kind of talk I ask you to step back and consider a few points. Firstly in relation to Reno’s editorial point, it was always clear that this was about the Plategate explosion. It has happened on the blogs and using blogs and therefore blogs were dragged into the public limelight (once again I would add but with a bigger knock out punch) thanks to Plategate.
The public attention and ruckus was not because of the blog. Nor is it because of what some would call Daphne’s marvellous style (blinding isn’t it?). Had it been that way, it would not have taken the Runs almost two years to get the massive hits it did would it? The answer is simple and there are no two ways around it: the magnet is Plategate and the promise of public slur and kerreja style attacks. Nothing more. Nothing less.
If you want further proof about how the meteoric rise in public popularity is due to kerrejja attacks for the voyeurs look no further than the New Kid On the Blogs. Love it or hate it (as Mandy Mallia would say) TYOM has made quite an impact numbers wide. Extremely fast too. Why? Do I still need to explain?
So yes, the program was inspired by the forced entry onto the mainstream scene by blogs thanks to the two voyeurist sites. Having said that it brought about many questions for the first time. The “impact” of slander and heavy accusation is much more immediate than a criticism of a political system. The “it could have been me” syndrome swithces on all the red lights when stories of parties, pogguti and powder are bandied in a very accessible public medium.
Reno’s program addressed this issue with the question: are they empowering or an abuse of the freedom of expression? The examples that everyone knows about and reads were there for analysis. My intervention was also in that context – based on ideas that I have been blogging about for months now. I insist on blogs beeing a tool that should not be punished because of some people misusing them. I insist that asking for new regulation is ridiculous because the regulation is already there and that no blogger is above the law (See Austin?).
When questioned on Plategate I repeated what I have long been saying – that the real questions, ethical and legal, are all based around “Why now?”. True, it has nothing to do with blogs and blogging but since they have dragged the medium down into the mud that is Plategate then it is open for discussion. DCG and TYOM accolytes can ignore this blog (or refer to it as a nonentity or marginalised) as much as they like.
Love it or loathe it (thanks Mandy) this is an argument none of them (or their handbag friends like Lou) is willing to engage. They prefer to ignore this elephant in the room – not, because as they would have it, it does not count, but because the battlefield of argument is a much more difficult one to engage than one where all that counts are backsides, style of dress and playground jibes.
Which brings me back to Dissett and I conclude this first observation. Bloggers cannot and should not keep hoping for validation from the mainstream media. Arcibald complains that this program was not about blogging but about the content of one blog. Nobody ever said that it would not be. Bloggers – the “marginal” ones not involved in the mud slinging pink twists of Plategate – need no validation. They do not need it from Daphne and her followers, from the anonymous gang behind TYOM or from the mainstream media. Blogs exist as media for free expression in their own right. My concern on this program was to point out that not all blogs produce the Runs or the poisoned medicine.
Quality blogs and quality arguments are “marginal” because they think different and engage in arguments that are different and non-habitual to the mainstream media follower. They are not in the business of selling the pan circenses to the crowd of baying lejberites and/or naxinalists. It’s been that way for five years of blogging – and we ain’t about to change now.
Simply because we do not engage in “trash and destroy” does not mean we cannot recogise its effectivity in attracting the numbers. We do not envy them those numbers. The fact that we do not engage in “trash and destroy” gives the quality value to this blog and others that the Mandy Mallias of this world wouldn’t recognise even if it were dancing infront of them wearing a Desigual dress and handbag to match.
That we are marginalised because we do not engage in “trash and destroy” is not a sad truth. It’s a promising reality.
Now… a bonanza of Runs quotes for the fetishistas:
Jacques Zammit has been blogging for almost three times as long as Daphne has, and hasn’t made a fraction of the impact which she has made, love her or loathe her. Deflating his ego (further) is thus is a tad unkind, no? – Mandy Mallia commenting on the J’accuse Dissett performance (the Runs). If it’s ego deflating she’s into then she has a lot to work on – mine’s universal… ever expanding.
Jacques Zammit probably has a little axe to grind, and consoles himself about his lack of impact by comparing this website to The Sun. – Mandy Mallia straight from the school of thought where people are only motivated to act/write/comment when they have “axes to grind” – what’s wrong with the Sun anyway?.(the Runs)
Tal-misthija. Qabda hodor u injoranti, riven with resentment and bitterness and weighed down by their effing chips. – Sis weighs in with the big guns (the Runs – or Not The Financial Times)
When questioned on Plategate I repeated what I have long been saying – that the real questions, ethical and legal, are all based around “Why now?”.
If that’s the case then please explain further. I find it hard to believe that you’re pushing the line that whether Daphne is guilty of libel, harassment or unethical journalism (and Scerri-Herrera of behaviour unbecoming to her office) all depends on whether the first salvo was fired before or after January 2010.
Yes. I would find it hard to believe that too. Because I am not pushing that line.
There are two distinct issues here. (i) The Plategate content: allegations and all – which are still awaiting proof. That will establish guilt on one side or another (and in a slander case please note). (ii) The manner and modus operandi that led to plategate. A journalist/blogger with hot information about a public person. The ethical and legal questions involving blogging and journalism are all about Why Now? The potential for blackmail, for pressure on other public figures (see the latest references to Judge Sciberras with the excuse of criticising Alex (his son) – loose allegations (depending on which lawyer you talk to) without substance simply to sow doubt in the minds of the readers given the context… I’d love to see a case involving DCG before Judge Sciberras now). I do not swallow the Citizen’s Champion one small bit – because of the selective nature of the attacks. DCG’s readers prefer to ask “how dare Jacques whatsisname accuse her of colouring facts” than “why is daphne highlighting these facts and not others”? Yes. legally and ethically vendetta politics and journalism is just not on.
Which does not mean of course that a finding of Daphne’s guilt of libel or harassment or Scerri-Herrera’s guilt of unbecoming behaviour depends on the timing of the first salvo. I am sure you knew that before you even started typing.
And why do you keep posing it as a question? I get the impression you do believe — pretty strongly — that you have an answer.
Can’t speak for Archibald but I’m also complaining … not as a (former) blogger but as a TV viewer.
Ultimately, this programme was about lawyers telling us that (a) legal restrictions on speech that existed for the traditional media apply to the online media but (b) because of the nature of the online media it is difficult (if not undesirable) for to apply the “old” legal regime.
Thanks but people who know what a blog is and are not lawyers knew or could have figured that out. But I guess if the BA didn’t come down like a ton of bricks to the cries of “not impartial” that makes last night’s “Dissett” a successful, quality programme.
Fausto,
whilst understanding your complaint, I do feel you are missing the point. As a proviso, yes i am one of the ‘experts’ (which I definitely am not)that was on Dissett, and as an avid consumer of, but non participator in blogs I too have my biases on the program.
The scope of the discussion on Dissett was to assess, as Jacques said, whether in light of Plategate (once again kudos to Jacques) and the emergence of TYOM, blogs require further and deeper regulation and control.
The answer i tried to give, whilst trying to steer clear of the actual controversies (something i did not entirely succeed in doing, i admit), was a clear no – that is, that the net and blogging in particular are a means of empowerment, and should not be limited in their scope and aims simply because some bloggers decided to use it for ‘trash and destroy’ purposes. Actually the fact that blogs have the power to ‘destroy’ is part of the empowerment that blogging provides (and to an extent it should also be defended). The question is whether this is the discussion we want to have. The fact that DCG’s blog has achieved such popularity says more about us who read that than about her who writes it. Personally, i would prefer to see a blog that maturely discusses real and tangible issues, rather than arse sizes and color of ties, would have greater following, but i guess thats me. On the other hand some entertainment is not something to shy away from either. However, once again as Jacques put it… why now? and why with such vigor?
Now, can blogs be dangerous? Yes. Should we stifle them through legal regulation? No. Law is not always the answer and is not the best tool for all circumstances. In this case, the law as a tool would be utterly ineffective as the net is too vast and too free to be regulated. In truth, I believe this is a question of self-regulation, or as I understand Jacques tried to put it, it’s a question of ethics. Is this discussion still pure legalism? Well to an extent yes – I am a lawyer after all so i can’t entirely help it – but that was the scope of the program.
Definitely not the most thrilling of programs to watch, but a good one none the less (there goes my bias ;p).
Hi, Alex. As you happen to be around allow me to point out that your explanation of Handyside vs. UK was somewhat bungled.
Nothing serious there: happens to the best of us. More importantly, those of you who deploy the famous line from the Court as an argument against censorship could also mention, for fairness sake, that the Court in the case ultimately found in favour of the UK government.
Cheers.
well Fausto I was referring mostly to Vereiningung Blindender Kunstler v. Austria, of 2007, where the Court applied this, granted over quoted mantra developed by the Court in Handyside, way back in 1976, to a collage of photos showing public figures, including Mother Teresa, in overtly sexual positions. This exhibition was open to the public and no warning of content was given. It decided, (albeit by a very small margin) in favor of the exhibition, stating “satire is a form of artistic expression and social commentary and, by its inherent features of exaggeration and distortion of reality, naturally aims to provoke and agitate”.
Do keep in mind that the area of human rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, is very dynamic and must respond to the times. Finally, also keep in mind this was a TV program with limits of time… not really the best place to explain the details and intricacies of the freedom of speech principle.
Jacques, a few further points/questions we should be asking ourselves:
1) Let’s taken it as a given that your blog is a quality blog compared to the competition. Ok, fine. Now if quality blogs really give citizens the ’empowerment’ they crave, why do so few people bother to vent their opinions, to enter into ‘quality debate’ and so on on this quality blog? You have given them a great platform. Why don’t people – apart from dear old Fausto, myself and a few others – engage here? Even a hundred individuals would be a good start. Where the hell are they? The question must be asked.
2) Now don’t take that to mean that I have concluded that j’accuse is useless. Not at all. Perhaps what it means is that I believe that the time has come to focus our energy on actually making something happen. For if all this talk and ‘quality debate’ here simply leads up to another national election where we will ultimately be drowned out by the usual suspects (just 2 in fact) with their formidable artillery of TVs, radios, newspapers, independent columnists and TV show hosts and now – blogs – well, what then? Will you spend another 5 years trying to convince people that they should engage in ‘quality debate’ on your blog?
3) There is one very significant factor, I think, which pointed me in this direction. It’s the way the Big Guys treat a blog like this. Did they give it as much as an iota of credit for being ‘a quality blog’? No, when push comes to shove (winning an election that is) you get called all kinds of names, people arguing eloquently on your blog become ‘hate figures’ and independent columnists bring out their calculators to demolish any argument that points away from the inevitable choice they want to sell you. In the intervening period they ignore you as far as possible.
4) In other words, they treat a ‘quality blogger’ in much the same way that they treat a poison blogger or a trash and destroy blogger. In fact, worse. Note that The Runs feels it must engage with TYOM while the TYOM crowd doesn’t give two hoots about this blog. That’s not where THEIR battle is.
5) So if that is THEIR battleground what should ours be? If that is THEIR game what should ours be? Is it just to provide a ‘quality’ platform for debate which few actually appear to be inclined to use?
6) Finally a question for Alex Sciberras who seems like a nice guy. Do you really think that this ‘low quality’ blogging phenomenon is so entirely disassociated from your own party’s media output today and in recent years?
David, the question here is what role for blogs if I understand you right. I have already answered it earlier and will do so again in (I hope) a concise manner:
1) VALIDATION Blogs do not need validation. You seek validation from the MSM/DCG/Bondi. For different reasons they will not give it to you. In the case of DCG and Bondi it is a simple equation – you only fight the battles you can win. The questions this blog has asked were not answered because it is easier to convince the anti-Labour crowd that Daphne’s is some crusade for the truth and justice rather than a vendetta – which is why Fausto finds it difficult to understand the importance of the “Why now?” question outside the world of who is guilty of what. They fight the enemy they have constructed and deconstructed time and again. The MSM is an uncomfortable participant – it would have preferred the world of editorial control that Austin Bencini was so crazy about (the difference between the apparently savage 30s and now is that the newspapers control what we see – that’s Austin’s take not mine). They have to participate in the new media anyway but they try to impose their old terms – we do well to watch them (almost amused) but we would not be recognising the potential of blogs if we wait for their belssing/validation to do what we do best.
2) QUALITY Yes. This blog works by example. Our particular theme has been the PLPN effect on dumbing down. We did not start being outspoken today but maybe our message is either complicated or wrong – if you gauge right/wrong by popularity. be that as it may we have been proven right on more than one factor – one example is the parties’ shedding of values for marketing. This is not a political party. It’s an opinion forum at most. You make the mistake of confusing the two. Blogs are one tool in the process of change but not the ONLY tool. Trust me, the silent impact of this kind of blog is much more noteworthy thanthe impact of a Runs or TYOM. Do you think the PLPN will not jump on the bandwagon two or three years down the line? In the meantime we set standards like we have always done. And frankly the point on validation means that we couldn’t be arsed what the Runs and TYOM think about us because just as our methods are useless for “their battle” then theirs are useless for ours.
3) WINNING ELECTIONS. Is not our business. At least not yet. Not until we form a party. But this is not a political party. Yes our arguments will get the usual attacks from the Runs etc and we will be called “hate figures”, irresponsible brats who are not in a happy marriage (sounds funny now no?) and more. The line of this blog has always been – so long as they are ready to come up with valid arguments we will rebutt where we can. If they start the mudslinging – we will take the “bite me” philosophy and move on. With or without them we are pushing the little promise there is for rational debate. And yes, that is our marginalised platform – and hell are we proud of it.
Concise my arse. (that’s me).
Ah, so being concerned about journalists and the judiciary living up to the calls of their profession (a trivial matter, of course) makes you “anti-” or “pro-” Labour.
Really man, for all your complaining of “PLPN” you are seriously prone to that kind of thinking.
@ DF. Bis-serjeta issa. Jekk qed nifhmek seww qed tghid li:
1) It-“trash” blogs (ejja nsejhulhom hekk) huma iktar popolari u effettivi u jirnexxilhom jattiraw l-attenzjoni tal-poplu u l-politikanti.
2) It-trash blogs huma dawk ta rilevanza (minhabba ir raguni ta fuq)
3) il-battalja tat-trash blogs li jghajru lil xulxin…jinjoraw il-quality blogs
4) X’jistghu jaghmlu il-quality blogs biex jidhlu fil-loghba?
Sincerament m’ghandix idea. Tahseb li min jintefa jaqra fuq kemm ghandha idejha hoxnin il-mara ta Muscat jew kemm kienu sbieh saqaj in-nanna ta Daphne ha jkollu pacenzja jaqra bir-reqqa xi post twil dwar il-faqar? Ma nahsibx. Tahseb minn jiehu gost jaqra fuq it-tqala fantazma ta dik u ta l-ohra ha joqghod jinkwieta fuq is-sistema elettorali/il-blogosfera u d-dmeokrazija? U ejja gbin? Dan qisek qed tghid lil minn jaqra Eva 2000 biex jintefa fuq il-kotba tal filosofija biss….
@ DF Do you really believe that a hundred is a potential number of people to comment on a quality blog such as this?
By way of benchmarking you may want to take into account our number of Parliamentarians, the way they steer Malta’s democracy, the background needed to post comments on a quality blog, the time needed in the process, and the benchmark/natural barrier set by comments themselves that would very often exclude those who may fear of falling short of set standards.
Just compare comments in response to this particular post to say a post on the runs…Kurt the Coconut… and the three respondents and comments such as ‘Give Dobby a Sock’ (comment reproduced in toto).
Re: focus our energy on actually making something happen… I ask, is the Jaquse brand meant to be a catalyst or a mover?
I labour under the impression that the Jacquse brand is a catalyst that blows seeds into the air, some of which sprout at some future date on some unknown terrain.
It is very obvious to me that the Jacquse brand is driven by brains and academic accomplishment in a specific field of academia, (and a ego that is of course a pre-requisite if one is willing to be seen and heard…)
Given these ingredients, I would think that it not such an insurmountable objective to make things happen.
It may all boil down to two things 1. What things are to be made to happen? 2. Is one willing or able to afford the price to pay?
There is always, of course, the option of making something happen that will delight one side (with ensuing generous signs of appreciation) and hurt the other (with ensuing signs of disapproval).
Quality blogs that decide to be movers can in theory make things happen.
Let us take the Party Funding issue. One can easily build up a head of steam if one where to stick to the topic and approach it from all sides.
Add to that, for example, focus on ownership of the ‘independent’ media, their business interests, links to authorities, public benefits enjoyed, extent to which advertising limits their ‘range’ of topics discussed, and so on and so forth…we could all have a right ball of course…yet this demands from the blogger a specific kind of claustrophobic lifestyle that few are willing to pay… I for one see this blog as an effective catalyst throwing a few seeds into the breeze, as it sublimely enjoys the simple wines of life…
I fully agree with Danny. I discovered this blog since you started writing for the Indy and have followed it since then. Not many are willing/have time/have the capacity to understand the arguments and make counter ones. I for one never attempted to reply or make comments(?). I usually agree (in full or with reservations) with your argumements Jacques, enjoy the discussion that follows and that’s that often for the reasons Danny made above. But I sincerily hope you are not thinking of stopping this blog as Fausto did (I followed his too and was sorry that he stopped – sorry Fausto I didn’t say this at the time but anyway here it is through your ‘friend’s’).
I could have continued blogging but with such a reduced frequency that it would have been “blogging” that’s more like the Times understands and less like the rest of the world understands.
Jacques does carry a guest post of mine every now and then so I’m not fully retired.
A short reply before I head off. You have answered the MSM/DCG/Bondi validation part by saying that you don’t need nor seek their validation. Fair enough. But you haven’t answered point 1 of my comment which is more important. Where are all those citizens in search of quality debate and politics? Underground? On Facebook? Minding their own business? Making another thousand euros? Painting abstract art?
Sully – jekk terga’ taqra dak l-artiklu li int sthajjiltu orgazmu miktub, tinduna li ghidt li d-Daff mhux trash and destroy biss. U jidhirli li parti mir-rispett li ghandhom ghaliha s-segwaci gej mill-fatt li taf tikteb artikli analitici tajbin hafna ukoll. Skond il-bzonn pero’ u dejjem b’tir wiehed ahhari: li ma tarax lil-Labour fil-gvern(ghalhekk politikanta prima). U ghalhekk ma naqbilx mieghek: in-nies jaqraw li jridu llum. Jekk tara l-gazzetti Inglizi, per ezempju, it-trend hi li anki gazzetta ta’ ‘kwalita” ikollha l-istejjer fuq il-libsa ta’ din, il-mustacci tal-iehor u l-holiday Barbados tal-ohra.
PS: before someone gets over-provoked by my “making another thousand euros/painting abstract art” question…I have nothing against making piles of money, nor do I dislike abstract art (well, some of it)…My question is: where are all the people who you’d expect to be even slightly interested in making a political change? Phew…all these disclaimers…
Sully – Fejn huma in-nies li jridu il-bidla? Nahseb qattghu qalbhom jew ghajjew jipruvaw jidefsu fix-xena politika dominata bi stejjer dwar il-patata ta dik u l-qrun ta l-iehor.
Rigward l-artikli analitici ta DCG – naqbel li tista tikteb artikli mill-iktar analitici u bis-sens u gieli minghajr tghajjir u insulti PERO ninota wkoll li ta sikwit dawn ikunu kontradittorji u jidependu biss fuq x’posizzjoni jkun ha il-PN. Naghtik ezempju – dawk l-imbierkin kontijiet ta dawl u ilma. Meta zidhom jew kien ha jzidhom Sant – DCG kienet tikteb artiklu wara l-iehor tghid li dan kien gvern kiefer u bla qalb u li kien responsabbli ghal stat ta l-ghixien tan-nies ecc….imma issa xejn min dan. Issa tghid li in-nies Maltin kapriccuzi u mhumiex jghixu realta.
aw gheda l’ironia. Nahseb li kulhadd jaf li DCG ghanda l’abilita tikteb argument analitiku u sensibli. IMMA M’Ghadix taghmlu dan issa saret “BITTER AND TWISTED” (someone please – how do you say this in Maltese?). Il haga li dejjem hassejt li deqitni i kif DCG dejjem trid tnizzel il poplu malti lisfel. U din hija nofs tort ta imperliasmu coloniali – u DCG hija wahda mill akbar vittmi ta din ir-realta.
I encourage you all to correct my abysmal Maltese – My first attempt in about 20 years.
Trash blogs – popular – smart blogs not so popular – methinks that this reflects the mainstream media realities of at least the UK and Australia – In the the UK the News of the World (in my view thrash – and I think you will all agree) is far more popular than The Times or The Guardian. Same in Australia – The Daily Telegraph or the Herald sell far more than The Sydney Morning Herald and/or The Australian. Same with TV – the commercial thrash channels are far more popular than the more serious and intellectually stimulating ABC or SBS. Its all about the lowest common denominator and power of the media (and the thrsah blogs)to dumb down society and lets not forget the profit motive – although this last point does not apply to most blogs yest.