Category: Library

Categories
Mediawatch

Programmes People Watch

You already know what we think of Bondi and Bondi+. But we’re a blog – a particularly difficult customer in the market of public opinion. We pronounced the death of investigative journalism quite some time ago and we never got a reply to the many questions we posed to Lou and his programme guest. But we’re a blog. We are but one opinion in a world of different opinions.

We may have a boringly irrelevant opinion and we may attract a few commentators (not bloggers Lou, not bloggers) that reflect even more opinions yet we are out there – to be read, agreed with or disagreed with. We too create our ripples in public opinion. And sometimes those ripples can be irritating. Irritating to the point that both blogger and commentators can be seen as “paċlieqa” – troublesome chatters that threaten the order of things. (video clip available further down).

Last Tuesday the sans-pareil of Maltese journalism had a programme about the environmental effects of the Delimara project. At one point in the programme he had a little battibecco with Leo Brincat when Leo dared to suggest that it is not only the experts who do not like the government plans but that there is also a strong wave of negative public opinion. At that point Lou Bondi – having earlier dismissed the importance of public opinion in such technical matters – feels threatened and interrupts on one of his classical “points of order”.

Lou is not against public opinion but against public opinion being the measure on technical issues. He throws in a stab at blogs and bloggers “ipeċilqu fuq il-blogs” – an indeterminate verb that is an attempt at superior disdain that backfires. You see Lou’s problem here is that he loses the plot quickly. Very quickly. On the one hand the whole spirit of his program is supposed to be that of an information exercise and the clients of such an exercise are the general public. Presumably they are being provided with facts with which to form an opinion – either that or this is pure entertainment and majtezwel have the bearded lady and a few elephants on the show.

The greater order of things however require that Lou is the arbiter of what is relevant (and definitely not the public). How wrong can he be? The public do not get to choose what is the right machinery – we are not all Profs Edward Mallias – but surely the exercise here is to see whether those entrusted with the choosing have done so in a proper manner and with the public good in mind. That is the relevance of the wave of public opinion that Leo Brincat rightly mentioned. It even goes beyond the NGO‘s.

Public opinion, according to Lou, is not relevant in technical matters. We should assume of course that Lawrence Gonzi‘s place of abode and the distance in meters from the San Antnin processing plant and from Delimara is of some obscure technical relevance only graspable by the likes of Lou. By his reasoning we should not really vote unless we grasp the full (technical) consequences of the decisions that our elected representatives will take – all the decisions.

Moving away from the issue of whether public opinion is or is not relevant in such a discussion, Lou’s blatant disregard of his very clients – the thousands supposed to be watching his every programme (why? not to have an opinion since it is irrelevant – so presumably to drool over his immense capability to orchestrate the stage) is shaming. Where’s Everybody has an English slogan: Programmes People Watch. They really should put a question mark at the end of that statement. Or simply add – Programmes People Watch – and hell if we know why.

Fast forward to proceedings before the Broadcasting Authority and Lou has a damascene moment – he is suddenly all for the public pulse and what they are thinking. Defending his cause for the right to have Norman Lowell on his programme he whips out a very technical criterion:

However, Mr Bondì claimed that, although there was a lot of feedback about the programme, he spoke to all those who felt offended and they later understood the producers’ reasoning that such ideas had to be exposed and challenged. He said Mr Lowell’s popularity had increased over the past years and he garnered almost 4,000 votes in the last election. This was partly because he was only allowed to appear on television without anyone rebutting his claims. This meant there was a public interest motivation in making people realise how dangerous Mr Lowell’s arguments were.

Funny. Leo Brincat (who is also guilty of throwing bloggers into the bipartisan basket – “bloggers taz-zewg nahat”) had simply stated that public opinion should also be important when measuring whether the government was being considered as the right administrator for the awarding of contracts. Lou was quick to dismiss that with a trademark non sequitur and leapt at the opportunity to side-jab the fora he has avoided to face time and time again.

Paċlieqa he says. Programs Paċlieqa Watch. Quite fitting I guess.

Here’s the clip of the relevant parts… and the useless song at the end.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Rubriques Sport

Inter-cettati (anteprima madrid)

Lettere da Alfonso Terzoli a Beppe Severgnini. Il perchè dell’antipaticità degl’inter-cettati. And someone please tell “pacliequ” Bondi how to spell “abbiamo”. Ich bin ein bayerischer!

Continue reading “Inter-cettati (anteprima madrid)”
Categories
Arts

Song for the Moment

Have a break. This is our song for the moment. What with volcano dust, euro shambles and a general feeling of depression we turn to Belgian artist Stromae and the catchy dance song: Alors on Dance. Lyrics provided below.

Continue reading “Song for the Moment”
Categories
Arts

Inter-cettati (i moralisti)

Lele Oriali is the latest of the Inter-cettati to comment on the Juve request for the revocation of the 2006 scudetto.

Speaking to Torino sports paper TuttoSport Oriali had the following to say:

“La Juventus vuole lo scudetto del 2006? Secondo me dovrebbero pensare a qualcosa d’altro, ovvero a tornare competitivi – attacca Oriali -. Inoltre dovrebbero prendersela con chi ha reso la Juventus in questo stato.

Lovely. Gabriele Oriali negotiated in 2006 to have a 6 month imprisonment condemnation (in a court of law, Joe) commuted to a fine of €22,000. The crime? “i reati di concorso in falso e ricettazione, a seguito dell’inchiesta sulle procedure seguite per far diventare comunitari giocatori che invece, nella realtà, non avevano antenati in Europa”.

Alla faccia di tornare competitivi!

When you build your successes solely by avoiding paying your debts and then “winning” leagues while others are busy reconstructing then there is only one term for the inter-cettati: meschini.

For the connoisseurs among you here is a link to the esposto by Juventus for the revocation of the scudetto. Sublime.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Politics

The Hardest Word

It all boils down to when you say it and how you say it then. As the poet said “It’s a sad sad situation, and it’s getting more absurd”. What began as a political issue on the pros and cons of a power station contract ended up as the battle of the apologies (or absence thereof). Joseph Muscat has trumped Lawrence Gonzi this time.

Both parties had been perceived to have committed a “wrong”. A foul. Apparently once you say sorry it’s all over. We have been spared the flurry of libels this time – instead we have the latest stance of concocted or real “indignation”.

Mizzi’s gaffe about Mario Galea and his condition was unpardonable. His was a heavy handed invasion of the private in an attempt to gain questionable political mileage. There are no two ways to go about it. An apology on that point can never come too soon – and need not even be asked for. The shame and guilt should suffice to bring the apology forward. We cannot wonder therefore at the gambit of Muscat’s Politically Contrite image. It has to work because it’s the bloomin’ obvious. What’s maravilious about it is that we had to wait till Monday morning.

We did not get one but two apologies. There was the private apology AND the public apology. We can only assume that one was the sincere “I’m sorry” from man to man while the other is the PR apology – a public act of contrition that includes an admission and an example: it is just as sincere but also reminds the public that these “role models” are admitting the error of their ways – do not copy this at home.

Now here is Lawrence’s quandary. The battle of apologies is a hand forced upon him in many ways. But when Tonio stood up late on a Thursday night to make certain claims about Justyne Caruana’s hushed vote in parliament he should have seen that coming. Forget the rubbish about pregnancy or non-pregancy – stuff for hysterical feminists and troglodyte chauvinists alike – the circumstantial evidence points to more than a hint of fabrication from the governmental benches.

The quandary is here. Were Lawrence to apologise contritely in a manner that should appease the baying crowds and disdained populace still coming to terms with the possibility of a “lying minister” then this would be an admission of guilt. The PN spin has until now waved the flimsy alibi of engineered soundbites and been supported by the usual suspects – it has not yet conceded the point. We all know how impossible it is to apologise for something before you admit to having done it.

That is the quandary for Lawrence. That is why he risks losing more plus points (not of the Bondi kind) among the voters. The General Council may be a placebo of pats on backs among friends but out in the street confidence in a government that cannot admit when it has gone too far is prone to wane.

For Lawrence, sorry seems  to be the hardest word.ù

***

ADDENDUM

Lino Spiteri pens a brilliant article in today’s Times about the consequences of Labour’s withdrawal from the committee responsible for electoral reform: Labour allows democracy veto.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Zolabytes

Symbol of a Stagnated Duopoly

Alternattiva Chairperson Mike Briguglio has kindly given J’accuse permission to reproduce this article. Thanks to Mike we have to rewrite most of our Sunday contribution (can’t have too much repetition going around) – but sometimes it is reassuring that J’accuse is not the only person to see the turn of events from a certain angle. So here is the zolabyte by AD Chairperson Mike Briguglio:

Symbol of a stagnated duopoly  by Michael Briguglio

The recent farce in Parliament regarding the vote on the Delimara issue serves merely as a reminder of the sad situation of Maltese politics. A human error by a Nationalist MP was not accepted by the Labour opposition but, in return, the Nationalists created a story on how a Labour MP voted. To make matters worse, the Labour Party retaliated by saying it will quit the parliamentary select committee.

How sad! MPs are being paid by the taxpayer and they resort to such immature and irresponsible behaviour, wasting everybody’s time in the process. Yet, MPs forget their differences in other instances, such as when they agreed to raise their own pensions! They also conveniently agree to exclude themselves from Malta’s Data Protection Act, thus enabling parties to get personal information on Maltese citizens. Not to mention, of course, Malta’s unique electoral system, which has been devised to maintain two-party dominance, and Malta’s very own party financing system, which is nothing other than “money laundering” in disguise, to the advantage of powerful political and business interests.

Parliament has become a symbol of a stagnated duopoly, which, unfortunately, is made legitimate by voting patterns in Malta. Yet, what are the PN and the PL really offering?

The Nationalist government has its strengths and weaknesses. Despite its seeming unpopularity, in some way or another it manages to present itself as a cohesive bloc, both among its parliamentarians as well as among its voters. Indeed, it seems to be the case that some disillusioned Nationalists do not vote in European or local elections to give a message to their party in time for the general election, or else, vote for a “rebel” candidate in the party’s ranks.

The political direction adopted by the PN unites traditional values with consumerist practices and support of big business interests while maintaining some form of welfare in place. I do not endorse this direction but recognise that, in this way, the PN has, so far, succeeded in creating a durable power structure based on the articulation of two main identities – the Catholic and the consumerist – winning support across class lines and among different social groups.

Of course, this entails contradictions, which are commonly found in Christian Democratic parties. Like a pendulum, Nationalist politics can shift from one that fosters a social market to another that moves towards the New Right and neo-liberal economics.

In recent years, liberalisation, privatisation and over-development of land have left their social and ecological impacts on the Maltese islands.

The Nationalists can save their day if the economy recovers, yet, if in government alone in the next election, we can only expect more arrogance, disregard for the environment, confessional politics and a lack of civil liberties and social rights.

Labour does not fare any better. With all the defects of Alfred Sant, the previous Labour leader did manage to make some ground-breaking feats within the party, such as cleansing it from its violent elements and projecting the image of the meritocratic citizen. Of course, Dr Sant’s Labour made a mess in its EU campaign and in its management of internal conflicts. Ultimately, however, Dr Sant’s project had already imploded in 1998 as it tried to create politics that pleases everyone.

Under Joseph Muscat, we seem to be heading back to 1996 “pleasing everyone approach” in terms of electoral strategy. Labour is resorting to catch-all strategies with the intention of appealing to everyone. Yet, as Peter Mayo put it in a recent seminar on Gramsci, Labour may well be embarking on the road of “misplaced alliances”.

Indeed, it is my conviction that, ultimately, Labour’s catch-all antics will backfire if Labour wins the next election and is in government alone. What will Labour do with regard to its simultaneous promises to hunters, trappers and environmentalists? How will Labour proceed with its newly-found environmentalist populism when the same party faces big business developers that it never criticises?

How will Labour introduce divorce if it knows that a parliamentary free-vote will have the opposite result? How will it introduce gay rights when it welcomes ultra-conservatives who make shameful parliamentary questions in its ranks?

How will Labour finance the public services it wants to defend when it is clamouring for tax cuts? How will it reconcile social justice with its rhetoric to suspend the Geneva Convention with regard to illegal immigration?

In short, how will Labour reconcile its “moderate” and “progressive” elements?

Winning an election is one thing, producing progressive social change is another. Yet, at the end of the day, does Malta have a critical mass of voters and political constituencies that really want such social change? Or is amoral familism – as depicted by Jeremy Boissevain – the most powerful value in Maltese politics? And does the public get what it wants or does it want what it gets, especially in a system where the two-party duopoly is controlling much of the public sphere and Maltese politics?

Michael Briguglio is the Chairperson of Alternattiva Demokratika and blogs at Mike’s Beat.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***