Category: Mediawatch

Categories
Campaign 2013 Mediawatch

Questions of Bias II

The other issue relating to bias presented itself fittingly just as I was being discharged from my one-day stay in hospital. The one and only guest on Where’s Everybody’s TVHEMM was the indefatigable Franco Debono. Franco’s interlocutor on the programme would be the usual presenter – Norman Vella. The programme was presumably supposed to be Franco’s compensation for not having been allowed to appear on Friday’s Xarabank opposite Simon Busuttil – and the subject of yesterday’s programme was supposed to be why Franco Debono voted against the budget.

I had already had a chance to see Norman Vella at work just after the budget vote. Given that I am not regular viewer of national TV I could not compare this performance to previous occasions though I had heard that he ran quite a good show on TVHEMM. His post-budget questioning made me quickly forget any plaudits I may have heard in the grapevine – his was a biased performance throughout, no two ways about it. Norman Vella was at no point interested in compèring the discussion and seemed to be an agent of the nationalist party throughout the show. Heaven forbid that our talk show hosts fade away anonymously in the background as was wont to happen in the eighties during pre-election broadcasts. I’m all for investigative and inquisitive journalism always on the hunt for the scoop or for acting as an additional check on our politicians inconsistencies.

Having said that Norman Vella’s modus operandi has nothing to do with journalism. On the post-budget debate his attitude towards Arnold Cassola was atrocious. It reminded me of the 2008 Pierre Portelli belittling the third party on live television. What is this fixation with coalitions anyway? Is that all that Vella and Co can think of when they face the only party that seems to have concrete progressive counterarguments to the budget? Forget all that, forget what AD might be trying to get across…what counts for Vella and Co is any attempt to put AD in the bad light of “a coalition as they understand it”.

Because after Franco, JPO and Mugliett the Nationalist party apparatus has performed magical summersaults in an attempt to denigrate the idea of a coalition in government. The fallacy is based on the fact that they try to make it sound as though the JPO-PN or Franco-PN arrangement was anything similar to a coalition. Well have I got news for you. It isn’t and it never was. JPO and PN cohabited in parliament after their public split. They were elected on the same ticket with the same agenda. If there was a split it was the PN’s problem – no new entity was created, no new ideals and definitely no coalition. If anything it was a dirty cohabitation.

Franco? A coalition? Franco was a result of ONE FRACTURED PARTY. No coalitions there either. A real coalition is formed by two parties AFTER an election when none of the parties elected to parliament enjoy a majority. That is assuming that we get three parties elected. So when Norman Vella decides to put on his latest idiot face (per modo di dire) and ask “Ma min taghmilha koalizzjoni?” Whether he is addressing Arnold Cassola or Franco Debono, he knows that he is just being facetiously ridiculous. A coalition is created by two parties once their power in parliament is known and is agreed to on the basis of a set of electoral promises that each party brings to the table. Norman Vella (probably) knows that. He is not a journalist though. Like JPO in 2008 he is a nationalist bearing a journalist’s card.

Yesterday, the apex of journalistic integrity decided to introduce a video clip about what Maestro Calleja had said during some University award ceremony. The relevance of the contents of this clip to the budget debate and vote will only remain known to Norman Vella and the Where’s Everybody team. Gurnalizmu fuq Kollox? Sensational journalism they mean. Biased even. The only interest of that clip was to work up Franco Debono into one of his heated states. It is a huge weakness that the man has – unable to notice that the more he huffs and puffs the more he sounds unreasonable. I am sure that WE were banking on that too when they chose to put Franco before the equally loud, mannerless and distasteful compère. Let’s face it. This was a show not a program.

Does our TV need this kind of bias? Isn’t it obvious that the closer we get to the election the more panic-stricken certain sectors of the media are getting. It’s pathetic all round. On the one hand you could already sense the labour “journalistic” crowd partitioning the new pie between them, much before the election is over. On the other hand the last pathetic attempts to grasp onto anything that might win their patrons valuable points leave the incumbents looking like a sorrier bunch than they usually do.

Andrew Borg Cardona likes to tweet that I am obsessed about this matter (maybe not as obsessed as he is about the elfish business). But if you are too blind to see how the PLPN rot of doing things has penetrated every sector of society then there’s a fat chance that this rot has got to you. Still. Makes for some interesting blog posts – think you not?

Categories
Mediawatch Values

Conscience, liberally speaking

François Hollande has found himself in quite a fix. His government is currently pushing the kind of law that is very easily labelled as ‘liberal’ (and consequently carries all the baggage that you might identify with the word these days). It’s France – the epitome of laïcité – and you’d expect the citizens of the republic to be either enthousiastes or at the most nonchalantes about the adoption of a law that has been dubbed “Marriage pour tous” (marriage for everyone). Yep. The biggie in France right now (apart from the herd of elephants in the corner called Angela Merkel, the Economist and the failing economy) is the new law that finally legalises same-sex marriages.

The debate is not so simple. Protests this weekend led to up to 100,000 catholics hitting the streets. In some cases we had violent scenes against the French version of FEMEN who had bullied the protesters in their usual topless garb with the words “IN GAY WE TRUST” writ all over their angry boobies (like angry birds but sexier) and spraying “Holy Sperm” out of cannisters. The religious organisations – still unable to get to grips with the very basis of laïcité are vociferous in their criticism. It’s not just the Malta of Tonio Borg that has obvious trouble coming to terms with certain concepts.

What was really intriguing were François Hollande’s declarations yesterday. Faced with a backlash from the mayors of many municipalities who found the idea of having to bind two persons of the same sex in marriage appalling he came up with a controversial solution. We still have freedom of conscience. He said. They are free to step back and nominate a delegate in their stead. He said. The possibilities of delegation can even be widened. He said. (In the likely scenario of a whole commune of representatives – from deputy mayor to cleaner of the Hotel de ville – refusing to preside over a lay marriage he is suggesting that they nominate “a valid outsider”).

Really François? How bloody socialist of you. Seems to me that the socialists of the 21st century are all bla and no substance. The proverbial men without balls (and women without…. oh you know… balls). What is the bloody point of asserting a right within a lay constitution only to say that there is a freedom of conscience involved and that the official person appointed by government to sanction that right might step out because he does not like it? Is the socialist movement asserting that it is a right or is it not? I’d love to see the gay mayor of Juan-les-Pins (disclaimer I don’t know whether he really is gay) refusing to sanction a heterosexual marriage… claiming that his conscience dictates otherwise. Where does this stop? What civic rights and duties could we thenceforth forego on the basis that we are conscientious objectors.

You know Monsieur Hollande, my conscience does not see paying exorbitant taxes in too good a light. I think I’ll take a pass and leave the tax form empty…. In today’s jargon messy Hollande deserves to have one big WTF? tattooed across his chest and paraded all along the Champs Elysées.

***

So while Hollande was busy crafting an escape vehicle for all the officials in his country whose conscience barred them from performing certain duties within their “portofoglio”, his colleagues within the European Socialist Party were taking a vote with regards to whether or not back that great Conscientious Politician Tonio Borg. In the end the Nays had it. Sure, socialist leader Swoboda seems to have quite a fancy for Tonio (not that kind Mr Borg) but for two-thirds of the grouping, Tonio had not provided enough guarantees. What guarantees I hear you ask? Well, the socialists in Europe expect Tonio Borg to never raise a conscientious objection to whatever projects the Commission embarks upon based on the laws of the treaties.

At the end of the session Maltese Labour MEP Edward Scicluna had this to say on facebook (where else?):

“An hour long humiliating experience I, as a Maltese, could have done without in group meeting today. Irreparable damage to our reputation. […] Condescendingly Malta pigeon-holed as the most backward and intolerant in Europe. This as a positive reason why EP should approve Borg.”

Apart from the fact that we have yet another example of garbled nonsense from yet another politician it is hard to decipher whether Scicluna is angrier at the fact that the Socialists were being condescending to Malta or whether he is angry at the fact that they seem to be intent on rejecting Borg’s nomination. Scicluna is a socialist himself so it would not be too big a deal were he trying to give the impression of both. They’re a strange breed these socialists – and they’re about to do another of their “free conscience” moves by allowing their europarliamentarians a “free vote” : which basically translates into “we cannot make head or tail about what we really want so best leave it to the disparate group to send a garbled message”.

***

Finally yesterday was also the day when the Church of England’s synod session continued. Hot on the agenda was the introduction of female bishops in a church that has already embraced the concept of lady priests (that’s not a cross-dressing father but an honest-to-god female with a dog collar). The “House of Laity” (The synod is tricameral, consisting of the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity) fell 6 votes short of approving the motion that would allow women to be appointed Bishops. Both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy had obtained the 2/3 majority necessary for the motion to pass but this fell at the final house – the one where the lay members of the church are represented.

The vote against women bishops included some women’s votes and this was a huge disappointment for the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. The new Archbishop Justin Welby has also described the vote as a disappointment. Interestingly, the Bishop of Christchurch (New Zealand – where female bishops have been ordained for decades) Victoria Matthews described the result of this vote as “the product of fear”.

***

21st century Europe might be afflicted with economic problems. Beneath these problems lies a deeper moment of crises that is shaking the foundations of our moral and political compasses. Much of what happens around us today is a result of this struggle that is afflicting or effecting the collective conscience of the Old World.

 

Categories
Mediawatch

Oops!

The European Parliament vote that determines whether Tonio Borg will make it to EU Commissioner might turn out to be a nail biter after all. We already knew that the liberals and the greens would be exercising their right to not believe that Tonio Borg’s track record in government can do the trick for him in the EP. We expected the socialists to have been truly charmed by the erstwhile politician’s performance in the Q&A plus the reds in parliament do have a way of  “power sharing” with the EPP as we had seen with the sharing of the Parliament presidential chair. The socialists voted on Champion’s league night and the vote was a surprising Nyet to Tonio.

What the socialists also chose to do is to give the parliamentarians a free vote. We all know what that means – Joseph Muscat seems to be quite a fan of that one. It was strange to see Edward Scicluna’s disappointment at the formation’s official position – he went so far as to describe it as condescending. Notwithstanding what some spin pundits in Malta are repeating ad nauseam this is not a question of imposing liberal opinions on someone who very evidently does not share them. This is about obtaining guarantees from Tonio Borg that he will not let his own personal views (to which he has every right) come in the way with his duties as commissioner. Many are still not convinced. Even after his reply to the 7 commitments that were requested of him it is evident that he has been unable to convince the most sceptical.

I have had occasion to mention this before and will do so again. The nomination by the PN government carried its risks. The problems being faced by Tonio Borg were not completely unpredictable. Interestingly it is also an accepted modus operandi in Malta – a nod to conservative inertia – that is on trial in tomorrow’s vote. A rejection might be a disappointment for Malta’s parties – both the conservative and the pseudo-progressive … although I am quite sure that Joseph has harboured a wish for Borg’s failure throughout the process. Tonio might just scrape through or he may not. Will any lessons be learnt from this experience? Probably. And that is what we can hope for at most as our country’s “progress” unfolds.

Categories
Mediawatch

J’accuse goes MOMA

A comment about pigs is all it takes for the inevitable viral. I wonder whether once the pc is turned off, the mobile is lost and the tablet is misplaced the main talking point still remains Adrian Vassallo (MD)’s porcine jibe. This is all part of the general conspiratorial plan to bore us to death with pre-pre-electoral exchanges. Virals and billboard campaigns are the new opiates for the people… in the end when push comes to shove they will forget their feigned boredom and vote – ostensibly for what in their minds is the lesser evil.

So in the meantime let us enjoy the ride. In the UK they had the Whigs and the Tories for quite a while. In the US we are used to the imagery of the Elephant and the Donkey for the two main formations. Our parties are as fertile as Abraham at 30 when it comes to values so the “Pig vs Dinosaur” dichotomy does not really fall cleanly along party lines. You should rather imagine the two parties sitting on the fence wondering how best to milk the two. If pig or dinosaur milk were worth milking that is.

Thank you Adrian Vassallo and anonimous Swede Lutheran MEP for the very appropriate imagery that you have provided. Nothing better than a badge under which to rally the forces. So what are you? A dinosaur or a pig? We present you with SHTF’s latest creation: DINOPIG… loves divorce but is absolutely against same-sex marriages.

 

 

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Porcine Anatomy

Following the last presidential elections  in the United States a couple of states will be legislating the universal right to marry (including same-sex marriages) and a couple of others will be legalizing the personal use of marijuana. The French government has itself begun to debate a bill this week that if successful will pave the way for same sex marriages in the hexagon. British society is dealing with the ghosts of paedophilia while Italy is in the throes of the umpteenth attempt to “clean up”its political act.

It could be a banal exercise in comparative politics – or rather comparative hyperbole but it would only be as sensational as the Fat Moustachoed Lady at the circus. We no longer afford to, and nor are we interested in, laughing at the latest vestiges of ottocentismo that has struck our island’s politics. On Tuesday afternoon Tonio Borg is in the dock having the values in his head examined in order to see whether or not he is fit to be one of Europe’s 27 commissioners. The EU itself went into a sort of seizure the moment somebody somewhere (Is that you Mr Giscard d’Estaing?) tried to define the value heritage it incorporates. We went something between comatose and autistic as words such as Judaeo-Christian and Humanist were whispered in halls between croissants and beer. In the end we gave up and thrashed the grandiose thoughts of a Constitution for the less optimistic (but equally radical) Lisbon reforms.

So our dinosaur is getting his head bashed in Brussels by an institution that is itself at the heart of a wider system that prefers the sanitary non-controversy of non-commitment than the idealistic aspirations of a society trusting in a deity and his inspiration much like the cousins across the pond with their “In God We Trust”spiel. Still. Still our island does manage to make a hash about our approach to ideals and ideas, to principles and to values. It’s less of a question of not having them and much more of a question of how to use them.

The supposed depositories of condensed popular values have long abdicated from their duty of guiding or elucidating a combination of lesser common factors in order to make the society of ours an open one that is acceptable for those who live therein. Concerned as they are with populistic masochism they have condemned our society’s development to a series of hiccups and bumps.

Which brings me to Adrian Vassallo. Apparently in a bout of pipe-induced fury he has condemned his calumniators to forever carry the moniker of “pigs”. Their crime? Having described him and those of his ilk as “dinosaurs”. It’s all a freak show in the end. A trumped up charade designed to make us believe that these are people who would die for their principles. Vassallo will be paraded as the pariah that he is (ironically with only those such as Tonio Borg who could embrace his ideals) both within and without his party. His shenanigans and porcine vocabulary will definitely serve to fan the flames of facile satire on the web but it will serve more the likes of the leader of his party who by distancing himself from the Vassallo position will end up sounding much more progressive than he really is. Actually he isn’t. Progressive. At all.

The misfits of the current band of parliamentarians will take their last stand in this particular parliamentary session of folly. They are irrelevant. irrelevant because their voices are in representation of no one but themselves. What remains to be seen is whether the population will accept the bland non-committal positions of our two parties in such areas as are normally labelled progressive and liberal. Given that none of the PLPN lot will be tempted to corner the sty for their own the real question is how much of the voting population can be tied to the liberal vote and what will they do with it?

The divorce debate had been one great window of opportunity for the liberals of the island to break ranks from the behemoth party of dinosaurs and fence-sitters. That occasion was lost and the spearheads of that liberal campaign were soon absorbed into the fold of false propaganda and hope. This election might not be too late for the liberal vote to form a critical mass that stands up to be counted. Will they find an alternative means of expression or will they insist on biting their nose to spite their face – voting for the parties that con them year in year out only to laugh at them and their temptation to waste their vote when the time comes?

The liberal movement needs to start seriously weighing the use of its vote. It’s either that or make a pig’s meal out of it all.

Categories
Campaign 2013 Mediawatch

What was he thinking?

Indietro Tutta! was a hugely popular satirical programme that aired on Italian TV (Rai2) just before the evening news for four short months (65 episodes in all) between December 1987 and March 1988. The programme introduced a new vein of humour to Italian TV thanks mainly to the po-faced feigned imbecility of co-hosts Nino Frassica and Renzo Arbore. A part from being a milestone of Italian comic lore, part of the great heritage of Indietro Tutta! was the phantom product “cacao maravigliao”. In a tongue in cheek take on the huge increase in advertising (Xarabank 2012 – Mediaset 1980s) that had just flooded TV in the eighties, the co-hosts began to advertise a new sponsor for the programme – Cacao Meravigliao.

Supposedly it was a new product from Brasil that everybody would like – a cocoa of sorts. The “ad” included a catchy jingle (see video) danced to the samba rhythm with scantily dressed chicas for good measure. It was an instant success. The tune was on everybody’s lips and soon it was reported that there was high demand for the product all over Italy – with many customers only finding out the disappointing truth at the tills of the Supermercati Co-In (this was before Auchan)… Cacao Maravigliao did not exist. It was a spoof. (There were some intrepid entrepreneurs in Naples who quickly packaged some cocoa in a hastily assembled Cacao Meravigliao packaging – but that is another story).

Fast forward to two Gonzi – Muscat debates and the mentioning of a particular Brazilian firm that was supposedly “relocating” to Malta. We all know the story of how Gonzi won spelling bee points during the debates by making Muscat look like an uninformed fool. When the subject came out I had no doubt that our PM would know what he was saying. After all this is 2012 and every assertion made in a debate can be verified. This was not even the eve of an election when it would be too late to contradict his statements (like the time when dear Eddie had come up with so much crap about AD).

No. This was a public debate with lots of time for sleuths to go fishing for this company. Gonzi told us he did not want the Brazilian company to be named to avoid its getting embroiled in “political football”. Since when do Brazilians shy way from football anyway? But that is not the point. The news is now out that “The Brazilian firm is a four man operation that is closing down” (Times headline – and by the way … a four-man operation? What kind? Sex-change maybe?). Oberdrecht – for such is the Brasilian company’s name – does exist (a diet of cold war spy stories has taught me to shy away from South Americans with German names but hey… it’s a global village nowadays is it not?).

When Alison Bezzina had written about her discovery of the company on the Times I did a quick google search. Turns out that the only mention of Oberdrecht and Malta was when the company was evacuating its enterprises from Libya during the uprising. My guess at the time was simply that having discovered Malta “en passant” and having lost its main base in Libya then Odebrecht must have decided to set up an organisational base in this “bridge to the African continent”. How that decision was flagged somewhere in PN spin-land and how it became “a major relocation of a big Brasilian company’s HQ to Malta” is anybody’s guess. You’d expect the PM to have people checking such facts before spouting them out as major scoops.

What we have now is Lawrence Gonzi probably rueing the day he mentioned anything Brazilian. Odebrecht is Gonzi’s “Cacao Mervaiglao” though the comic effect is definitely unintentional. The biggest mess was the delay tactic involved once it probably became clear that there was no huge conglomerate moving to Malta and creating employment. Feeble excuses like not naming the company for the company’s sake were not even close to satiating the curiousity of press and public.

Next time Gonzi should try scantily clad girls ready for the samba drome… all he’d need would be a catchy tune… then the people will believe ANYTHING.