Tag: daphne caruana galizia

Categories
Dalligate

Dalligate avec du recul – (Part II – Regrets they have a few)

The day Dalli resigned from the Commission (or was forced to resign if you prefer) I got a call from Malta. “They’ve just mentioned his resignation on RTK. Is he preparing for the election too?” You couldn’t fault this way of thinking if you wanted to. A man had just resigned from probably one of the highest posts within the European Union and the first thought that probably sprung to the mind of many Maltese was in relation to the forthcoming national elections. Will Dalli be back like a latter-day Schwarzenegger? Slowly, as events unfolded it became more and more clear that Dalli was out through no choice of his own but this did not assuage the thirst for Melito-centric interpretations of the goings-on.

Again, we were still in “hazy-fact” land when the tribal delineations began to take shape. It wasn’t hard to second-guess really though in some cases the conclusions drawn could be surprising. Dalli was the man kicked upstairs by the nationalist party to what he seemed to uncannily consider his “Siberia”. His rather frequent raids into the Maltese political scene were at best described as indecorous (for a Commissioner) and at worst clumsy. Three issues stick out like an ugly wart on a halloween mask: (1) first there was the questionable business in relation to energy and SARGAS (in apparent partnership with a future labour government), (2) then there was his intervention as a witness for Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando in the little farce court held at Dar Centrali, and finally, on a rather different (and perhaps more crucial level) was (3) his baffling intervention during the Libyan Spring that had Barroso fuming at the collar.

Dalli had definitely positioned himself firmly away from the “ungrateful” (in Franco Debono terminology) PN constellation and was busy cosying up to the rebels on the one hand and the opposition on the other. He could have let this all go by and concentrated on fulfilling a prosperous term as Commissioner. This would have done his CV a load of good, even in Melito-centric Malta, and who knows whether by the end of his term he would not have preferred pastures new far away from whatever counts for politics on the island these days. We won’t know though, and never will, and one of the reasons is that John Dalli has Silvio Zammit as an acquaintance, probably has him down as a business partner, more probably still as some form of confidant. I insist on the probably at this stage because I prefer to wait for the concrete proof to come out (as always).

So yes. We were saying. Dalli resigned and next thing we knew it was connected to charges of fraud and trading in influence. What happened next was very telling. I’ll try to summarise a few of the positions:

The Greater PN Benefit

I couldn’t really fathom this one, but that’s probably because I try to think in logical order and not through conspiracy theory smoke. Essentially there were varying degrees within this faction but the underlying theme seemed to be one: Dalli’s disgrace is PN’s gain. Funny that. No matter how much acrimony Dalli had shown to the PN in the past months, he remained a Commissioner nominated by the present Prime Minister. A disgraced commissioner is a disgraced nominee for the country. I had immediately blogged on that point  (The Surreal Case of (ex) Commissioner Dalli) and pointed out what seemed to be the obvious, namely that not only was PN’s nominee disgraced but this was compounded by the fact that it was evident to many that this nomination was the result of the party putting its interests before the nation’s.

The We Told You So Brigade

Which brings me to the “we told you so” brigade that numbers among its ranks the heavyweight blogger on the Runs. Daphne was in a way proved right to have pointed out that Dalli was a problem that should never have been exported. With hindsight the nomination of a volatile figure such as Dalli seems counter-productive. The underlying reason for the nomination was very evidently the exportation of an inconvenience (best encapsulated in the phrase “kicked upstairs”) than the result of a search of the most suitable person for the Commission post. In macchiavellian, “The Thick of It” terms, Dalli had already turned into a sort of untouchable outcast politically speaking and by nominating him to the Commissioner’s post this problem would not simply vanish.

The Conspiracy Theory

Inevitably you had the usual suspects hanging on to John Dalli and praying and hoping that this was some weird conspiracy theory by those evil schemers at PN HQ who needed to rid themselves of this evil economist before the actual election run up. Needless to say that if the people in Pietà are really that stupid to hoist a petard under Malta’s reputation abroad simply to get John and his retinue out of the national election equation then really this country is in the pits. You did have what would become the MaltaToday line of journalism (coupled with ONE News and its corollaries) trying hard on the “entrapment” line – nothing to do with Paul Borg Olivier slyly laying an email trap on Silvio but rather the “Evil Tobacco Industry” pulling a smart one like, you know, they do in Hollywood movies. That case remains a weak case – two days on and is fast running dry of ideas. I still have one question in this respect though: What is John Dalli’s level of interest in MaltaToday? I’m not holding my breath for any answers.

So those were the main battle lines. Poor Dalli was doomed in most cases as a nation of sleuths set to work trying to delve deeper into Dalligate. Interestingly the Dalli bomb relegated many many issue to a secondary level. Parliament and its convoluted agenda were momentarily forgotten, no “iggranfat mas-siggu tal-poter” and no calls for early election. Even Joseph Muscat learnt his lesson and announced a “cautious approach” to the matter.

The first indication of the transmogrification of Dalligate into electoral spin came, unsurprisingly from the nationalist corner of the ring. It was inevitable because Labour were still reeling from the obvious problem of guilt by association. For too long now had they courted the disgruntled Dalli and, worse still, they had often hinted that part of their energy plan involved Mr Dalli and his Nordic contacts (oh sweet irony of ironies). The Nationalist party should have been reeling too. As I explained earlier they were the nominating party for BOTH persons involved in the scandal. A Nationalist Commissioner and a Nationalist Deputy Mayor hailing from that great college of upright councillors that is Sliema. So in the first place we got silence. A whole bloody wall of it.

Which left space for the usual noisy bunch. The first indication of a plan, a suggestion, for making use of Dalligate to PN’s advantage came from Daphne Caruana Galizia on her Thursday column. The plan was the tried and tested “guilt by association” and was built very much on what Labour probably feared the moment Dalli’s resignation came out. It was simple really – Dalli, thanks to his recent dealings and appearances was not really a nationalist Commissioner. No siree, Dalli was to be slammed with the worst label in the nationalist political book: he was “Labour”. It’s just like the Franco treatment of late. You know “he deserves to be with Joseph’s skip, dak Mintoffjan”. The equation worked out the logical leaps for you. Dalli is Labour. Dalli worked with Labour. Dalli’s plans for a future Labour government make him even more Labour. So Dalli’s resignation is tantamount to a full blown Labour loss.

Which is in part true and reasonable. From a Maltese point of view and if you were to ignore all the happenings at Commission level (and the fact that the offer, the bribe and the report relate to many things but to nothing Labour) the recent appearances by Commissioner Dalli made him in the least a “non-nationalist” and at the most someone who comfortably beds with Labour. The script was there for all to see and the Runs made sure that regular postings reminding us of Dalli’s recent supposed ills reinforced this theory. Little surprise therefore that after a trip to Brussels for the latest information Malta’s avant-garde investigative journalist returned to produce a programme sans-guests that seemed to have been ghost written by Daphne Caruana Galizia. I needed more than one ‘kerchief to stop the tears from flowing when Lou spoke of his “witnesses” who could place Dalli and Silvio at Peppis between March and May. Really Lou? Your “eyewitnesses”? Pity Daffers blogged about them first.

Slamming Dalli and slamming Labour might be convenient but it misses one major participant. It depends on Lawrence Gonzi admitting that his nominating John Dalli as Commissioner was with hindsight an error of judgement. You see, no matter how pro-Labour Dalli’s slant had begun there is no denying that he was in Brussels (with Silvio) thanks to the kicking upstairs by our PM. It would seem that the pitch by the DCG-Bondi duo was not to be taken up by Lawrence Gonzi:

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi vehemently refused to pass any comments on Commissioner John Dalli’s resignation but said he is not sorry he took the decision to appoint him Commissioner instead of Joe Borg in 2010. Asked to give his reaction on the negative impact on Malta’s image due to Mr Dalli’s resignation, the Prime Minister only said that he did not want to pass judgement. (…) Asked whether, with hindsight, it was a mistake to appoint John Dalli  Commissioner, Dr Gonzi defended his decision and said he was not sorry for his decision. (Times)

There you go. No regrets. Which means that the prodigal son was not refuted. Once again I agree with Daphne and believe that this is a statement that Dr Gonzi might come to regret – even on a purely political level. Our Prime Minister has other pressing issues in mind though – first among which is the nomination of a new commissioner.

The New Commissioner

First of all let us simply agree that Labour’s calls for a “consensus commissioner” are ridiculous at this stage. They come from the same school of constitutional law as Franco Debono’s or Robert Musumeci’s. The interesting bit is that notwithstanding the fact that the PN might have learnt its lesson about putting the party’s interests before the nation it might find itself in the unenviable position of being unable to do otherwise.

Why? Simple. Whoever gets sent to Brussels is almost definitely out of the running for next election. Not to mention that whoever goes to Brussels is also out of campaign planning. The most suitable candidate has been tainted by the kangaroo court parliament show. Yes, I’m speaking of Ambassador (emeritus) Richard Cachia Caruana. Should Lawrence Gonzi nominate him as Commissioner (a post he is undoubtedly suited to perform) this would be the end of the nationalist campaign and the opening of an unassailable gap in the polls. Worse still, Cachia Caruana is a crucial behind the scenes participant in PN electoral planning and it would be hard to replace such a player at this stage.

Other suitable candidates from among the party giants could also be considered a “waste” in party terms. A Chris Said or a De Marco for example would be an unhappy wastage for the PN. You could consider an outgoing politician but do you really imagine Austin Gatt in Brussels? The good thing is that he would take Delia with him. Or maybe not. Michael Frendo? Tonio Borg? Possibly. Definitely not Simon Busuttil – too many votes to be lost with him away though again his would be a perfect fit. Which leaves us with the least controversial option. Louis Galea, currently sitting at the Court of Auditors, would slide into the job without so much as a whimper. He’s already been assessed for the suitability of holding a high profile EU post, is already up to date with EU institutional workings and hey, he’s a smart politician, which is not so common these days. In a way Galea’s nomination would lessen the impact of what would otherwise be a case of PN priorities trumping national priorities.

Preliminary Conclusions

It’s a tough call and there’s much more to write but this post is already too long for my liking. (A call back to the days of my Indy columns). There’s much more to mull about but one thing is for certain… Dalligate is not short of repercussions on the Maltese side of the scandal.

 

 

 

Categories
Mediawatch

Anton Refalo & the law

Writing in the Malta Independent Today, Daphne Caruana Galizia takes another (well deserved) dig at Alex Sciberras Trigona and rightly points out the blatant incongruence of AST’s “democratic” arguments. It’s not just that AST has the barefaced cheek of calling the present situation undemocratic but also that he has got the basic constitutional principles wrong – as J’accuse has explained time and again, this government is legitimate so long as it does not lose a confidence vote in parliament. Daphne mentions the efforts of the Labour party to “rewrite history” and a quick look at the J’accuse archives points to how this effort at propagandist revisionism was predictable some time back (see The J’accuse 2011 Tag Cloud under “History Manipulation”).

The trouble (or one of the troubles) with Labour is that in their effort to counter the PN “30-years Back” propaganda they are coming up with the most brazenly offensive bits of propaganda with regard to the present government in an effort to picture its tenure as some dictatorial, non-law abiding clique in the style of an Army Coup in some tin pot democracy. Labour’s propaganda technique is simple: repeat a lie so many times that it begins to sound like the truth. We are not talking of legal nitpicking on some moot point that could go both ways but about a simple constitutional principle that yells in your face. A government is a government so long as it does not lose its support in parliament. The only way to gauge that support is by votes in parliament – not by declarations in MaltaToday or interpretations in MaltaStar or status updates on facebook. Simple.

Or it should be simple. Right beneath Daphne’s article (on the Indy Online) lies an article by Labour’s spokesman for Gozo Anton Refalo. The man’s reputation among legal circles is of an efficient lawyer – efficient does not translate to good and believe you me in this case good is very far from efficient. You see the laws of the land also include procedural elements and ethical components with regard to the functioning of a lawyer in assisting his clients. By abiding by these laws and procedures, lawyers form part of a wider system that does its best to mete out justice for all: blindly, impartially and equally. The rules of representation and chinese walls between lawyer and client in particular are very important for this functioning. I harbour strong doubts whether Anton Refalo, Gozo’s aspiring Minister even has a clue about how these should really work.

He gave us an example of his grasp of constitutional politics in today’s article. The bottom line is simple… the laws are just there for your aesthetic convenience. Follow the “social contract” (which one Anton? Should we have an Alfred Sant-like stunt every election with the Dear Leader signing some “social contract” for the fun of the people complete with Notary in attendance?) and forget the law.

The GonziPN can twist and spin the story beyond reasonable boundaries but the bottom line remains the same: That is, that the PN has lost the working majority in the House. Even if the Constitution still gives the PN the legal rights to remain in power, morally and politically it might not. There is no other way but to put an end to this situation by giving the people the right to express their view.

By refusing to take this step, the Prime Minister is putting himself in a situation where his legitimacy is being eroded. The Prime Minister must realise that ultimately any democratically-elected sovereign derives his legitimacy more from an unwritten social contract than from the written laws.

Well Anton. A democratically elected sovereign will go to the polls once it is clear that he has lost the working majority of the house. He does so when a vote of confidence is called in the house (as has been done over the past year) and when that vote of confidence is lost (as has not happened yet). In the meantime all the talk about legitimacy and undemocratic regimes is just a load of hot air, talk and bravado. It may work elsewhere Anton, but so long as the law is to be abided and so long as we have a modicum of decency in the application of that law then you’ll have to wait for the inevitable vote of confidence that will crop up in the last semester of this year.

The law Anton, we are all servants of the law so that we may be free.

Categories
Mediawatch

The State of Censorship (a preview)

Stop “personal attacks”. That was PM Gonzi’s appeal to the nation. “Appeal” is a keyword there. It says a lot about “oligarchies” and “power”. The newly announced censorship provisions (that incidentally deal with a fraction of what we refer to as censorship and expression in daily parlance) are not even law yet but many jumped the gun drawing conclusions between the PM’s appeal and the new laws.

So. Last night I watched “The Devil’s Double” a movie based on the true story of the real-life double of Uday Saddam Hussein. There was Uday, son of the Iraqi dictator lording it all over  Baghdad. He did what he liked and that included driving up to school gates and picking up 14 year old girls to take home and rape. In Hussein’s Iraq the only rule was “do not mess with the Hussein family” or they will mess you up.  It was not funny. In essence if Uday did not like you he turned into the horrible nightmare of Ahmed the Dead Terrorist – without the laughs. “Silence…I keel you”.

And Gonzi “appeals” to the nation. To everybody. For he cannot do more than that. He should not be able to. I cannot fathom what supposedly intelligent beings like Saviour Balzan could mean when they come up with the legal lie that Lawrence Gonzi has some power to shut people up. And by people I mean the obvious targets like Daphne Caruana Galizia. What rubbish. What delusional stupidity. I’ll have more to say and to explain as to why all this is rubbish later. Meanwhile I will ask you to watch the video that is in the top corner of this post (right). Forward it to 2’20” and watch the exchange between the debate host and Republican Primaries Candidate Newt Gingrich. J’accuse will comment on this later in the day and explain what it has to do with much of what is happening in our wider political-media circles.

For reference here is Saviour Balzan’s latest rant:

Categories
Politics

When Daphne was right

Following the speculation in the media about possible alternative electoral methods the discussion has returned to focus on the “premio maggioranza” – the compensation of seats for the party winning a majority (even relative) of votes in an election. The “stability” excuse gets politicians thinking of mechanisms to make it less possible for a renegade “Franco” to shake the boat. It is indeed incredible how they cannot see the flaw in the premisses of their argument. First of all stability should not be the be all and end all. The cause of the current instability can be found in our constitutional articles – the famous “enjoys the support of the majority of the members”. The reason the Gonzi’s PN or Sant’s MLP had a one seat majority was because they did not get enough votes to justify more seats (don’t mention gerrymandering – it’s a case of PLPN games anyway- if that’s the problem just abolish districts).

Before I go on, remember that the “suggestion” is still that – a suggestion. None of the parties have been stupid enough to take a position official or semi-official. The Times carried an article with interviews with Joe Brincat and Ranier Fsadni  – that’s all. Still this question of “premio maggioranza” needs to be tackled once and for all. It’s nonsense. If something like an automatic three-seat margin is accepted then we might as well (as someone suggested) give 34 votes to the PM and 31 to the leader of the Opposition and then just vanish till the next election. Dynamic democracy needs a better definition and interpretation of the transfer of power from voter to representatives. It is by nature a transfer that remains dynamic and allows for scrutiny of the different branches of government that should be acting as trustees of the voter’s power.

Which brings me to this article from the past. From January 2008. The theme was the other side of the coin: the Wasted Vote. It is also another victim of a system envisaged to reward two parties excessively and to the exclusion of the rest. In this article I was replying to an article by Daphne Caruana Galizia on the Independent.

***

(Alas) Daphne’s Right

Posted on January 29, 2008

What follows is a letter that was NOT sent to the Malta Independent on Sunday for a number of reasons. It is a reply to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s article entitled “Settle down and read this, please“.

It has become a weird habit of politicians to apologise to editors for the space they use up in the letters pages whenever they write in with their contribution. Now I am neither a politician nor am I the apologetic type but I do feel a tinge of guilt that the subject matter of this letter requires more space than is the norm for a letter to the editor which in most circumstances should be short and to the point.

In her article last Sunday, columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia berated the “tiresome lawyer” Claire Bonello for ‘relentlessly whining’ against all that is Nationalist as well as for not declaring her bias towards Alternattiva Demokratika. There is much to be said about the necessity of declaring a bias that is obvious for all to see but that is not why I put fingers to keyboard to contribute to this discussion. What really interests me is the issue of “basic electoral mathematics” so ably brought up by Daphne – the matter of wasted votes.

It is a uniquely magical effect of this country’s electoral laws that give us a situation where – and Claire will surely pardon me for adapting her poster – you “Vote Harry, Get Freddie”. Daphne is right. So right on the issue of these peddling Alternattiva vote-catchers who prey on the arithmetically challenged chatterers of the Sliema Bourgeoisie. Surely they are aware that the votes they crave for their leader will be flushed down the electoral toilet. A vote for Alternattiva is the electoral equivalent of Professor Refalo’s negative marking in the Constitutional law exams for first year law students. You don’t just waste your vote, it’s also less votes for PN and hey presto one more feather in Freddie’s cap.

How funny that I should mention Constitutional law. That very constitution against which the laws of the land should be tested – the kelsenian grundnorm that guarantees that we live in a democratic country and not in a Banana Republic. Daphne is right. The current electoral formula does not allow you to focus on the party you want in power. It does not allow you to say “Hey. I don’t like the nationalists. I not even vote for the MLP when I’m dead lest my vote be counted with that of the living. Then why not vote for AD?”

Why not indeed. It seems that when you think that way you choose to ignore the ominous presence of a potentially disastrous party ready to pounce on Castille. Daphne believes that asking people to vote AD means ignoring the existence of MLP. Something like the child wishing the monster away and hoping the adults will deal with it. Which could be true. Only there is a bit of twisted logic in that too. It may be a step up from basic arithmetic but I am sure Daphne could bear with me as I explain.

You see the problem is that, as the European Parliament elections proved, given the chance 20,000 or so individuals would vote for a different kind of politician. Let me be clear about this. It does not necessarily have to be Alternattiva. My interest is the breaking of the stranglehold of bipartisan politics – and Alternattiva is currently the only plausible alternative I can think of. I see it as a Trojan Horse into the fortified battlements of MLPN. Getting rid of the dichotomy means getting rid of the parochial way of thinking and governing.

So, given the chance people will change voting habits. The bigwigs at MLPN noticed that and last year they dealt the final blow to this possibility. They took away the chance for thousands of voters (even Daphne’s chance) to vote for another party when irked with the two of them. They created the mathematical formula that underlies Daphne’s argument. She is right. Of course she is right.Under the present magical formula concocted by the PN and passed unanimously in parliament, 20,000 votes spread among the 13 districts of the country can be lost. A party garnering 20,000 votes will not get one single seat in parliament. The magic words “proportional representation” have been neutered to an insulting situation where: if, and only if, two parties get elected to parliament under the present system then the seats shall be allocated proportionally to their national vote.

Daphne is right. What she is telling us is this. If you were ever thinking of changing the political spectrum in this country you have been royally screwed. The disincentive first trumpeted to the masses by then PM Fenech Adami – vote AD get Labour – is now here to stay. In one fell sweep, PN got rid of the only party that could seriously challenge its programs with an alternative vision of doing politics. It was one fell sweep that guaranteed the status quo in our political scene. What we have is an alternating chair. So long as Labour remain the band of inept politicians that the PN machinery depict, then PN’s place in government is virtually guaranteed.

Sorry Claire. You cannot go on campaigning without showing the second half of your poster. No “Vote Harry” without “Get Freddy”. I have other plans on my mind. You see Daphne, I too am one of the chatterers. I would love to not have been brutally disenfranchised by the electoral reforms. Like you I am often baffled at the way politicians in this country are ineffective because they live secure to see another day – since electoral scrutiny has turned into a PN vs. MLP farce. Our paths split the day you decided to accept the way MLPN voted to hold your vote to ransom.

I am fully aware of the repercussions of voting AD. I am fully aware of the “wasted vote syndrome” in our elections. Unlike you however I think that the responsibility is not mine to bear but that of MLPN and their electoral reform. Come election day I will exercise my right to vote. I will continue to use my vote to provoke change in Maltese politics. And the day my vote for Harry translates to a vote for Freddie I do not believe I should be the one to do the worrying… I’ll leave that to whoever came up with this wonderful idea that my vote is worthless and worth wasting.

The ball is in their court.

Categories
Articles

J’accuse : Studies in Theatre

According to a possibly apocryphal story that is doing the rounds on the Internet, Steve Jobs watched the launch of the iPhone 4S from his favourite sofa in his home in Palo Alto. The man hailed as a visionary by the world’s press purportedly snacked on apples and rice pudding throughout the performance of Tim Cook: the man who had been the new anointed presenter of Apple’s latest breakthrough. The “source” claims that at the end of the show Jobs smiled as if to say “all things are in good hands” but did not utter a word.

The story is not exactly “Acts of the Apostles” material but you can see where the cult of Jobs is beginning to take shape. Jobs the visionary, the prophet of all things new, the philosopher with a positive attitude about misfits and changing the world. Here was a man who had influenced the globe − the whole world − with his ideas. It was beyond innovation. Innovation is “only” about improvement − making things better. Jobs went one step further. He made things “different”. A Times (UK) columnist put it neatly: Jobs did not give people what they wanted − he gave them products they could never have imagined.

It is somewhere there − the blasphemous fine line between innovation and creation. This prophet of the age of technology challenged the status quo − and won. No matter what he was “creating”, how far his philosophy took him, what Jobs did best was standing on that big empty stage and work the audience into an elevated sense of expectancy until, with the wave of one hand (and click of a button), the latest step in the Darwinian evolution of Apple goods was unveiled.

Yes. Steve Jobs of the limited wardrobe and unlimited intelligence was a master of theatrical presentation. He may have sat back and just given us his products through the usual channels of marketing but he chose to break barriers there too. Apple became a symbol of desirability and speciality − taking brand fidelity to new frontiers. And much of this usually culminated in the special launch events theatrically prepared and magnificently executed by the man who wanted to challenge our way of thinking and whose legacy will live on for much, much longer. Thank you Steve.

Wucking fankers

On Student’s Day this year we were regaled with a bit of amateur theatrics that took place on the university quadrangle. The dramatis personae included, the MegaloMinister Austin Gatt and a set of ministerial groupies, a cross-section of the student body, a couple of journalists faithfully following the ministerial route, and a hitherto unknown Theatre Studies student who goes by the name of Nicolà Abela Garrett. First impressions count, and the first impression we got was of a student who was mightily miffed because of the Arriva Disservice and who voiced such “miffiness” in no uncertain terms by directing a series of expletives to the minister who sleeps soundly at night. Such “miffiness” was couched in expletives of a rude-ish kind and was dutifully reported by the reporters-in-waiting in their respective online and printed papers.

My first reaction was “bravo” to the girl followed by a secondary reflection on the irony of it being Student’s Day. Oh how times have changed since the days when a critical word or two directed at government ministers would be interpreted as an invitation to a herd of thugs for an impromptu “rag day” in tal-Qroqq featuring the accessories of bare fists and knuckledusters. Any inquiries a propos the past should be directed (among others) to Michael Frendo (then esquire) − and no, Deborah Schembri, remembering the past is not an issue of political convenience.

Well done theatre studies student then. A child had finally stood up and told the Emperor the truth about his clothes. Wouldn’t it be great if more people thought and spoke their mind (and voted with it) than just Abela Garrett? What happened next − from all sides of our political power spectrum was an unfolding of scenes in our very own theatrical scenario.

One sees red

The media machine for the Opposition took up its position for scene two. Abela Garrett was projected to heroine status notwithstanding her choice of vulgar language that surely was not fitting for our sede sapientae. Nothing wrong there of course; however, those blessed with a long-term memory could detect a certain hypocrisy by the red media when it came to “judging” students and their ways.

RWD (that’s rewind) back to the last election when a young Caruana Galizia junior invited a cameraman of red persuasion to “f*** off” in no uncertain terms. The very same journalists (and party) that seemed to be exalting Garrett’s proficiency today had taken quite a different tack at the time − pushing the “indignated” buttons. At the time, no opportunity was wasted to call students all sorts of words − FFW (that’s fast forward) to today and all seems to have been forgiven.

Abela Garrett went on to apologise for her language but not for her outburst. The apology was also covered in all the papers along with a sort of investigation/witch hunt into the identity of the individual/individuals who in true MI5/CIA style had stopped Abela Garrett and given her a “talking to” while asking her for her particulars. Conspiracy theories flew across the Internet boards until it turned out that the “bully” in question had acted “spontaneously”.

Spontaneity

Mr Xuereb, a MITA employee, defended his vigorous questioning of the foul-mouthed student by claiming that his was a spontaneous and undirected reaction. The implication is clear − this is not a ministerial investigation with possible repercussions. It was an individual taking the matter into his own hands. Interestingly though, “spontaneous” was his defence and “lack of spontaneity” was the main criticism directed at the solo protester from the blue corner of the spectrum.

Apparently, according to the likes of Daphne Caruana Galizia and Lou Bondì, the fact that Abela Garrett’s protest was premeditated somehow lessens the value of the protest itself. Funny. I remember how both these advocates of spontaneous protesting defended Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s not so spontaneous antics in the run up to the last election. We have it from the horse’s mouth − in a recent interview with Josanne Cassar, Pullicino Orlando recounts how he was prepped and trained for those eventful days. In JPO’s words: “I was instructed by Richard Cachia Caruana and Joe Saliba to chase after Alfred Sant whenever he spoke publicly, in order to confront him when he did mention me”. Back then it seemed all very worthwhile for the Caruana Galizias of this world to defend the JPO charades to the hilt. Bah. Plus ça change.

Since when does preparing for an act of protest make it any less effective or truthful? It seems that the Times of Malta has sacked Mr Bonanno, the journalist who told Nicola about Gatt’s visit. Of what pray is this young hack guilty? Of telling Nicola about Austin’s visit? Why? Was it secret? It’s not like it’s a frame up to which he was accomplice. Had there been a false story and had he willingly accepted to become an accessory to it then sure, sack the guy. Here though we had a journalist losing his job because instead of following up on a fax announcing a protest in Valletta he “took his notebook” to the scene of a pre-planned protest he had learnt about via Facebook.

Theatrics and the public

Nicola Abela Garrett chose to enact her own little drama. She planned an ambush on Malta’s sleepy minister. It was well executed and actually got much more attention than is normally reserved to Ministerial hecklers in the standard press. The script included a few lies such as the bit about the bus from Attard to Naxxar and the missing of lectures (What lectures? Very few lectures have actually taken place since the launching of Arriva). She does not lie though when she voices the anger of all commuters who have had enough. As I said earlier − good for her.

The reactions to Abela Garrett’s very public showing were typically overblown. From the Labourite praises on the one hand to the character assassinations by the usual suspects in the Nationalist fold on the other. We are not new to political theatricals. Our very polarised television programmes that are supposed to be investigative are just well-rehearsed Q&A sessions with every pre-selected invitee playing his part. It was amusing this week to watch Lou “indignado” Bondì get hot under his collar on his blog (Lou, a blog?) about a new Saviour Balzan programme during which Balzan interviewed one of the abuse victims.

Bondì would have wished Saviour to ask a few questions that Bondì had prepared but, unsurprisingly, Saviour failed to pick up on this invitation. Bondì knows full well how crucial it is to the theatrics of TV for a programme’s presenter to control the questions as well as the panel of invitees. It’s theatre Lou − and the bad actors’ mask soon falls off on its own so there’s no need to worry about Saviour and his bias… it conforms fully to the journalistic standards on TV that you have so gotten us used to.

Curtain call

That’s all I have for this week. Actually I have more but time and space constraints play their part − as do editorial deadlines. I’d like to borrow the Apple philosophy statement for my concluding lines. I adopted this philosophy for J’accuse when I started the blog and I like to think, every now and then… that I still have that streak of craziness in me that obliges me to think different. Thank you again Steve Jobs.

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.

www.akkuza.com is running on slow at the moment due to other commitments. Bear with us and in the meantime enjoy the new flourishing of blogs in Malta’s volatile blogosphere. Most of all: Think Different.

Categories
Mediawatch

De Moribus Viator

Julia Farrugia’s “rapping” at the hands of the Press Ethics Commission (PEC) has brought the question of journalistic ethics back to the discussion arena. J’accuse has long taken the subject of journalistic ethics to heart – particularly within the context of the growth of the role of blogs and blog content in the public sphere. For some time now we have been mourning the death of investigative journalism in Malta and it has little to do with who is carrying the scythe.

In true fishpond fashion, the post-mortem analysis of the Julia Farrugia/Joseph Mizzi has been absorbed into the mainstream manner of journalism: where beyond the news item lies an opportunity to snipe at people and milk the possibility to sling mud as far as possible. This analysis of ours has nothing to do with our being faint-hearted or timid about the need to call a spade a spade. J’accuse has no claims to purity or perfection (though we do get damn close).

What we would like to see discussed is whether Julia Farrugia failed on the count of exercising journalistic discretion when faced with a possible story. In the case of that kind of examination we find that our judgement falls closer to that found on Lou Bondi’s or Daphne Caruana Galizia’s blogs than on the explanation afforded by MaltaToday journalist Matthew Vella. At the moment of receiving the information and video, Farrugia was duty bound to apply an ethical brake to the eagerness to publish a juicy video.

Matthew Vella tries to find fault with the PEC’s reasoning. In particular Vella does not agree with what he reads as a shift of moral responsibility: “it was not incumbent upon the journalist to take moral umbrage at the source’s footage. That would have been tantamount to self-censorship, on the basis of the assumed deference towards government appointees.” We may grant that the standard being applied by the PEC may not find universal acceptance (or cause difficulties in future application) – but that would be focusing on a separate problem. The focus here was on a journalist’s judgement and ethical considerations when evaluating “news value”.

Vella asks: “So does this mean from now on, when we encounter some form of embarrassing or unbecoming behaviour by a government minister or high-ranking civil servant, they should not be held to account, simply because they ridicule themselves?” I don’t think anybody would agree that this is the conclusion to be drawn. Let’s put it this way, had Julia Farrugia’s news item limited itself to reporting the fact that Mr Mizzi was filmed in a groggy state we might not be here asking questions. Instead the implications loaded behind the video, its suspect editing and the forcefulness with which it was used to bring about a political statement and result, shift it away from plain reporting and into the hazy domain of journalism driven by preconceived agendas – in which case it stops being journalism. It becomes biased reporting where “facts” are cut and paste to suit a journalist’s agenda.

Which brings me to the Daphnes and the Lous of this world.  Lou Bondi has recntly taken to blogging and no longer considers the blogging world as a world of “peċluqa” (see video below) – either that or he has become one hell of a “peċluq” himself. His last two posts at the time of writing (“Julia, try a red bathing suit this time” and “When Julia went crying to daddy“) are redolent of the style perfected on the Runs (there goes the obsession). Malta’s foremost investigative journalist does not limit himself to discussing the ethical issue at stake but performs his own little foray into the world of character assassinations and guilt by association.

Daphne too chooses to deviate from the real issue and peppers her commentary with references to “il-boton” – the usual snide, taste-based, zokk u fergħa reasoning best left for PLPN bull towards the election. This is a pity really because there is no doubt that Caruana Galizia has accumulated enough expertise and networking to have the right sources and means to fill the gap that exists in investigative journalism in Malta. Instead she participates happily in fishpond peċlieq with gay abandon.

Yes, we know we can expect the tirade on J’accuse from this magnificent duo of Maltese journalistic standards but hey what’s new? Plategate may long be buried in the collective memory and might be down to the final stanzas of what has been a drawn out lament but the lessons to be learnt are still there in full view of anyone who cares to listen. Last time round – back in the heyday of Plategate – we held Lou to task for his apparent inability to assemble a proper program investigating the causes behind Plategate and the conflagration that ensued. Like Julia Farrugia, Daphne had sat on some juicy and important bits of news regarding the behaviour of members of our judiciary and their extended circles. Like Julia she had a decision on whether to go public or not. That was her moment of applying journalistic ethics.

Lou failed to ask Daphne (his dinner friend) the vital question: Why now? (as in Why then?). Julia Farrugia deserves the rapping on the knuckles for her lack of judgement in the Mizzi Affair. Daphne Caruana Galizia would still have us believe that the flush of information regarding the private lives of public individuals was triggered off by a sudden urge of public duty notwithstanding the fact that she had sat on that information (and accumulated it in true peċluqa style) for quite some time. Why did she choose the moment she chose to suddenly publish the information? Lou tried his damn best to depict Daphne as the hero and martyr when making his editorial choices for the infamous Bondiplus programme.

In J’accuse’s book the press should be reporting instances of public individuals who are caught misbehaving while on public duty. It should be uncovering these situations of public officers behaving badly and should continue to press on to ensure the transparency of such information.

What should never be done is to use such information in line with a private agenda of spite, hate, jealousy and retribution. Unfortunately it seems that Malta’s fishpond journalism is more and more prone to pick up the latter style than engage in real investigation and reporting.

So much for ethics then. Take that from Malta’s longest running peċluq.

Bondi’s peċluq