Tag: Lou Bondi

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Political prestidigitation

So they set up a Foundation to organise national festivities. So far so normal. This is after all the Malta of Saints and Fireworks where every raħal worth its globigerina limestone has at least one Kumitat tal-Festi. This is the country of the xalati and illum il-festa tagħna so the setting up of a Kumitat tal-Festi Tagħna Lkoll was just waiting to happen. No surprises there. It was even less of a surprise given how Joseph Muscat has been harping on emptily about some kind of breaking of barriers insofar as the “us and them” is concerned. The fans of the PLPN crowd have long obsessed about the greatest national holiday and about how divisive their respective celebrations can be. In truth the approach to each of our nation’s dates with history simply betrays a shallowness bred out of partisan ignorance and stereotyped fallacies.

Back to the Foundation though. The news causing greatest ripples across all the media was the appointment of Where’s Everybody main man Lou Bondi to the same Foundation. Oliver Friggieri would be chairing the committee and one sincerely hopes that his current health  situation will allow him to provide a decent input, whatever that may be, given the already limited (and doomed) remit of the Foundation. What really I found really jarring at the moment of the announcement of the committee members was the importance given in Malta to a new kind of professional – “the TV personality”.

Back to Bondi though. The net – especially the net – exploded with expressions of dismay bordering on angst as many a hardcore Labour supporter expressed his disdain that a member of the EvilGonziClique had been given a place in the wider court of this government’s workings.Everybody knows that Lou Bondi would  feature close to the top of a Labour hate list – trumped only by the one they refer to as the Witch from Bidnija and a close competitor to Lawrence Gonzi himself. And here he was – Lou Bondi – entrusted with the organisation of the nth anniversary of Jum il-ħelsien. Horror. Surely Dom would be turning in his grave.

The beauty of it all was also the reaction from the nationalist side of the national whinge fest. Apparently Bondi had just lost his credentials as a decent journalist. Really? Caruana Galizia even attempted to twist and turn the argument on its head by affirming that Bondi was not a partial journalist and that it was his impartiality that was being rewarded. In a world gone mad it was only another hapless voice to add to the chorus of dismayed and angered oohs and aahs.

The real winner in all this? Joseph Muscat. Not only has he set up a Foundation that is basically there to perpetrate the mental masturbation of an idea that is “reconciliation through celebration of all our national days”. Not just that. He has appointed one of the most hated personas in the Labour, chip-on-the-shoulder based, psyche to the very same Foundation that is supposed to be a stepping stone towards the breaking down of the “us and them” barriers. Chapeau. Really. A magician’s hat from which to extract the rabbit.

 Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called “The Pledge”. The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course… it probably isn’t. The second act is called “The Turn”. The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you’re looking for the secret… but you won’t find it, because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn’t clap yet. Because making something disappear isn’t enough; you have to bring it back. That’s why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call “The Prestige”. – The Prestige

We all saw the object. The object was the inherent contradiction. “What? Lou Bondi appointed onto a board by the Prime Minister himself? Had we missed his billboard where he expressed blind belief in everything Joseph does?” We were supposed to be awed. Stunned. The wizard behind the curtain had his eyes on a bigger picture. Most talk and criticisim in the first 100 days of Labour rule has been about the way meritocracy was thrown out of the window. Merit was scratched from the vocabulary as billboard folk were appointed to government posts and most of the Super One workforce shifted to ministerial salaries. What happened next came as a surprise. All of a sudden you had the most nationalist of nationalists – a hated journalist, friend of the witch, cousin of one of the most disliked Ministers – elevated to a government appointed position.

It’s one big distraction. The biggest yet. While everyone and everybody complained we would forget the Marshalls, the Testas, and the Micallefs of this world. Muscat became the magnanimous. Too magnanimous. Under Muscat EVEN Lou Bondi gets a blessing. We even forgot to ask what this committee is really about and how important it really is. Prestidigitation took care of that. Just like the idea of building a bridge to Gozo. Now that’s a project that could only be conceived or supported by a Baldrick or an equivalent turnip. Muscat has not built the bridge and I am prepared to wager that it will not be built. What we have is the prestidigitation – the signing of contracts with the Chinese and the illusion that “we are thinking about it”.

All you needed to complete the magic trick was the couple of hired hacks who would sell the tenuous argument that all the unmeritocratic change that has been happening is normal and should have been expected. Give them the chance to look shocked and slightly angry that Muscat went so far as to appoint Bondi – it gives them an amount of cred doesn’t it?

The truth? The truth is that a wave of politically motivated appointments should not be normal and is not to be expected, no. That’s bullshit – particularly coming from supposed pundits and ex-columnists. When combined with all the talk of reconciliation and new way of doing politics, the wave of appointments simply confirms that the Labour government is one big magic trick that only needs a not too particularly alert audience to notice the scam that lies beneath the surface.

So while you whinge and whine about whether Bondi should have been appointed to a post by Muscat, or whether he should have accepted, remember that you are wasting your time.

Try to stop looking at the rabbit and the hat or at the magician’s eyes… look at his lips instead… that smirk on his face will speak a thousand words.

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”


 

Categories
Politics

That Constitutional Question

Identifying Lou Bondi’s pitch on Tuesday’s Bondi+ was not too difficult. Franco Debono is doing a good enough job of undermining any valid points he may have with his behavioural shifting from the conspiracy theorist to the unabashedly ambitious politician. Franco seems to be unable to reconcile the values of his political mission with his unbridled hunger to slither up the greasy ladder of power as we know it. His behaviour plays into the hands of the spin-doctors of  “taste” who are prepared to highlight his faux pas until they totally eclipse any reasonable matter he may rightly wish to bring onto the forefront of the national agenda.

Bondi desperately tried to pitch the Franco vs Gonzi angle repeatedly throughout the program – infamously culminating in Franco’s refusal to “parrot” the words that the anchorman (and Nationalist quasi-candidate endorser) had desperately tried to plant in his nervous interlocutor’s mouth all evening. One aspect of this angle pitched by Bondi was his continued insistence that Franco was way out of his rights when he threatened to bring down this government by withholding his confidence vote when the time comes.

In a little “f’hiex tifhem?” (a very typical Maltese challenge of “what’s your expertise in this”) moment Bondi referred to his university lecturing credentials (“I taught politics and not just sociology – ghandek zball madornali“) presumably inspired by Franco’s earlier stunt of using his school reports. For a second I was worried that the two would pull down their pants and compare the size of their private members (sic) but a little side jab about the “Santana booing incident” (as witnessed from the I’m A VIP Quasi-Minister section of the crowd) did the trick.

Back to the constitution.

For it is a constitutional issue we are talking about. Does a lone MP from the parliamentary group of the party in government have the right to threaten to bring down the government? In bipolar (sorry, bipartisan) Malta we tend to run off with the idea that the game is one of simple mathematics – you win an election, you have the autocratic right to govern (should I say Oligarchic Franco?). Sure, what with the pilfering and tweaking of the electoral laws we have perfected the English constitutional bipartisan system to perfection and driven more than one death blow to the possibility of proportional representation.

Last election’s carcades were hooting to the tune of a D’Hondt majority (see Bertoon illustration that we cooked up the next day). the D’Hondt system of voting combined with our “tweaked” constitutional provisions had led to a relative majority government – no party had obtained more than 50% of the votes but one party had 1,500 votes than the other. A constitutional clause had come into play and the way it worked was –

a) if only two parties are elected to parliament,
b) if none of the two parties obtain more than 50% of the votes,
then the party with the largest number of votes (a relative majority) will be entitled to an adjustment of seats in order to be able to enjoy a majority of seats in parliament. That’s all found in article 51(1)(ii) of the Constitution of Malta.

Interestingly (and useful for later discussion) the provisos to this article are a rare instance in which reference is made directly to “political parties”.  It’s interesting because the Constitutional structure relating to representation and government (and therefore to the management of the basic power entrusted by “the people”) centres around individual “representatives” as elected to parliament by universal suffrage. The constitutional link between elector and elected is direct – there was no original intention for the intermediaries we now call “political parties”*.

This important distinction between political parties and members can be clearly seen from the Constitutional article on the appointment of the Prime Minister – article 80:

Wherever there shall be occasion for the appointment of a Prime Minister, the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the member of the House of Representatives who, in his judgment , is best able to command the support of a majority of the members of that House (…)

Again. No parties. The President takes one good look at the House of Representatives and determines whether any member among them can count on “the support of a majority of the members” – that’s what is in play whenever a “confidence vote” comes into play. It’s an opportunity to put to test whether the PM still enjoys that  majority support. In the current context it’s what Joseph Muscat would like to table (a motion of confidence) and where Franco’s threat might come into play (by not voting for the PM and thus undermining his ability to “command the support of a majority”.

Now comes the hard part for hardcore nationalist voters to digest. Franco Debono is the latest symptom of the Coalition of the Diverse called GonziPN that oh-so-miraculously snatched victory from the jaws of defeat last election. The rainbow coalition within GonziPN was possible because of a lack of scrutiny, a loose combination of values (if any) and mainly because any candidate who could steal valuable votes that could lead to the relative majority victory (and therefore to the automatic majority in parliament) was backed to the hilt. Remember the JPO saga? Remember the spin masters backing what was very evidently a loose gun to the hilt – basta nitilghu?

So when the members of parliament finally took their place in the house of representatives Lawrence Gonzi could assume that he commands the support of the majority of members. He assumed it because any leader of a political party in Malta who has just won the election assumes that his party members will back him to govern. Easy. Alfred Sant assumed that in 1996. Lawrence Gonzi had no reason not to in 2008. The mechanism is not foolproof however. At the basis of the whole system remains the basic currency of power transfer – the representatives themselves. As Franco has reminded us more than once the “support of the representatives” cannot be taken for granted.

The mechanism of “support” or confidence is a check on the power of government. Viewed from outside the convoluted scenario that Franco has created around himself (with the help of the bloodsucking media) you will understand that the right of a member to withdraw his support is an important check in our democracy. It is just as important (if not more) as the existence of an opposition.

Even though our political parties operate on the assumption that “loyalty” is universally automatic they have now been exposed to the democratic truth that it is not. The failure is not of the system but of the arrogant assumption that the bipartisan mechanisms that the parties have written into the constitution will guarantee their permanent alternation. Franco’s methods might be obtuse and distasteful especially when they betray blatant and crude ambition but on a political level the renegade politician who disagrees with the party line was not only predictable but threatens to become a constant in the future.

The more political parties ignore the need to be coherent politically and the more they just throw anything at the electorate in the hope that something bites the more they can expect of “Franco-like” personalities. The failure to whip Franco into the party line is not a democratic failure or a constitutional flaw but a failure of the political party to operate as an effective vehicle of democratic representation.

D’hondt worry? Frankly it was only a matter of time. It’s actually a miracle it took this long for the shit to hit the fan.

* In a recent House of Commons document (Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation)  political parties were defined as “the mechanism by which people of any background can be actively involved in the tasks of shaping policy and deciding  how society should be governed. While they are not perfect organisations they are essential for the effective functioning of our democracy. Without the support of political parties it would be difficult for individual Members of Parliament, as legislators and/or as members of the Executive, to organise themselves effectively for the task of promoting the national interest—including by challenge to the Government, where that is necessary and appropriate—and ensuring that proposed new laws are proportionate, effective and accurately drafted.”

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

Categories
Admin Mediawatch

Sleeping Bitches & Galliano

A serialised long post intended to reassure readers that while we normally let sleeping dogs lie there is no reason to believe that we are reluctant to call a spade a spade.

N.B. To be read in doses. Reminder to Daphne-lites: You are free not to read on. On the other hand the breaking down into parts of this post is intended to facilitate cutting and pasting for better presentation while posting in other blogs’ comment sections.

I

The intellectual standards of this too-complicated-for-plebs blog do not normally allow us (the Royal We for Wankellectuals) to descend into the pits of mud-slinging that can be discovered daily in other quarters of the Maltese blogging world.

Back in 2007 J’accuse (6 on the 10th of March) had a tough time moderating the bitching and haggling in the comment section. Having realised belatedly the usefulness of the new media (thanks to the eyeopening sessions on J’accuse in mid-election campaign) some of those commentators went on to open blogs  of their own… perpetuating their inimitable style developed in the comment section.

II

That was then. Meanwhile, we remained happy to discuss politics and not people, ideas and not looks, values not prejudices – all the while observing the development of the use of the new media. We continued to ask questions – in particular with regards to different parts of the Fourth Estate. Others chose what a colleague of mine called the Slash and Burn style of journalism – and got their accolades from their acolytes.

Today, I feel obliged to put up this post after a sincere demonstration of concern by readers who via e-mails and phone calls wondered whether I would ever reply to what appears to be a sudden fixation by Daphne Caruana Galizia on what she calls a “Class A Wanker” (actually she claims to have called me so several times bah… sticks, stones and girls in a playground).

III

I would normally have no time to check the lesser side of her blog – the Runs – having long abandoned any hope of finding any intelligent conversation by the various aliases. I have no problem with checking Daphne’s daily postings because I cannot honestly expect to comment on the internet news without taking into account other blogger’s points of view and slants on the news. I have no time to waste on the ramblings of the Daphne-lites in the comments section though and were it not for the signalling by J’accuse readers and a sudden mention in a post attacking an article by Saviour Balzan (but mainly based on the usual “guilt by association” approach – more on this later)  I would not have noticed the revival of the DCG fixation.

It transpires that a few Daphne-lites have been stoking the columnist’s easily flammable temper by posting interesting observations about myself or my blog. It also turns out that Daphne is stupid enough to think that I would actually post on her blog with an alias. I have never hidden behind an alias and never will. What did happen – as I confirmed by using common sense and a bit of research – is that a person who commented regularly on this blog (using his first name to boot), and who is based in Luxembourg, started to do so on Daphne’s (using the same first name).

The paranoid reaction to the endless nit-picking by this particular commentator was to send him back to “his own blog” to play. Yawn-inducing paranoia had come into play.

IV

Daphne and the Daphne-lites have a fixation with the unreadability of this blog. Incredibly they also have a knack of referring to it constantly. Does that classify as irony? Sadly for the rent-a-crowd in that corner of the net J’accuse shows no signs of abating and remains a steady reference point for the more balanced approach to analysing current affairs. (Did I mention that we turn 6 on the 10th of March?).

Of course our analysis might not always fit in to the jigsaw puzzle of the World as Seen from the Runs. Here are a few (unanswered) examples:

  • PLATEGATE or Why Now? Part 1: J’accuse was the ONLY presence in any part of the press asking the most pertinent question in the Daphne Caruana Galizia vs Consuelo Scerri Herrera saga. If Daphne had collected such a wealth of information over a long period of time alleging inappropriate behaviour by a Magistrate … what prompted her to start blogging about it?  Why did she choose that particular moment? Was it so hard to admit that it had nothing to do with civic conscience or journalistic probity? WHY NOW?
  • RAYMOND CARUANA or Why Now? Part 2: Almost a year passed and we had a similar situation. DCG upped the ante on Illum journalist Julia Farrugia. Suddenly more than 25 years after the actual facts DCG developed an acute sense of journalistic investigation and went on a whole trip piecing publicly available information together to develop a story. What you think about the story is irrelevant. Daphne’s timing is not. It is irresponsible to say the least. But very typical of journalism that is not at the service of the public and the truth. It is journalism at the service and use of private means and ends. I don’t buy the stories of Daphne being some poodle to RCC or some other masters bidding her to do this and that. What I do read is a very unprofessional and unethical application of journalistic skill. Why now indeed?
  • JPO: Funny how JPO is now accusing Daphne in court (under oath) of being a slave to political masters – ready to do some spin damage at their beck and call. J’accuse can vouch that Daphne was busy insulting anyone who dared criticise crocodile tear Jeffrey during the Mistra saga. She backed the nationalist party’s outright defence of the man even in such instances when he was given a press card to ask questions to Alfred Sant. Press decency my backside… the imperative was save Jeffrey… save the party. Especially from people who were “setting themselves up as objects of hate”… yep this was the time when Daphne heaped insults on anyone who dared propose that the PL/PN option was a blind, valueless cul-de-sac…. we would be vindicated come the divorce issue (among others).. but hey what counted was the character assassination at the time.

V

Taste. Daphne is big on guilt by association and character assassination. Who will ever forget the “zokk u fergha” campaign? Just look now at the Mintoff-Labour-Gaddafi saga as Daffers turns into a one-woman CNN of sorts reporting such great events as which flag is flying over the Libyan embassy in between harassing Graffiti poster carriers in wolf-in-sheeps’ clothing outfit.

The Saviour Balzan post referred to above was a clumsy attempt at throwing a number of perceived “nasties” together. Here’s the list of persons supposedly manning the barricades in some imagined revolution :

Salvu Balzan, Roger de Giorgio, JPO, the Prisoner of Zenda from Brussels, Matthew Vella, Al Jazeera Stagno Navarra, Choccies Benoit, Josanne Cassar, Secret Weapon Astrid, Julia tal-Guy, Charlon ta’ Albertown, xi Claire Bonello max-shag ta’ Norman Lowell, Ronnie Pellegrini, David Friggieri and Jacques Rene Zammit. Jason Micallef will man the field hospital and the Communications Coconut can be used to sneak messages below the radar across AnAmy lines. Don’t forget to take Reno Calleja with you, my dears, u xi AST ukoll ghax dak espert kbir fir-regimes. U jekk ghandkom bzonn xi covert operative, tinsewx li ghandkom il-Guy tat-Tunny Net.

 

Hospitals, covert operatives, regimes… jeez imagination does run wild at night doesn’t it? Oh Well, should our revolution ever need a kitchen stocked with such WMDs as crockery of the finest kind we know who to turn to don’t we?

In one fell swoop Jacques René Zammit is equal to Reno Calleja is equal to Ronnie Pellegrini is equal to Roger Degiorgio etc etc. It’s obvious. If you haven’t swallowed the “blog is unreadable” line then you might as well believe that Jacques Zammit, Reno Calleja, AST and Franco Farrugia (another one bandied around who I do not know from Adam) have one and the same objective.

Anybody who knows me or any of the above would know that this couldn’t be further from the truth. Daphne is more comfortable avoiding subjects such as Plategate or constructive criticism of the faults in our representatives operation and chooses to build on the guilt by association. The frenetic, paranoid attempt at bunching everyone who she disagrees with into one caricatured bundle is much easier on the mind of her readers anyway.

That way she can let fire with the Wanker or unmarried or nerd or whatever she perceives as the latest trendy insult…

VI

So yes. We’ve taken some time to look at why Daphne has suddenly worried our readers with a few gratuitous insults aimed our way.

Read my lips (or my characters):

Jacques René Zammit has never insulted Daphne Caruana Galizia.

I have criticised her modus operandi. I have criticised her argument but I have NEVER insulted the person.

There must be something to be read in the fact that Daphne Caruana Galizia has never replied to any of the critical arguments posited here and elsewhere. If the answer, like her friend Lou’s is that she does not read the blog… that it is boring …it still does not explain the insults. If you chose to take note of criticism then you might as well have the decency to reply with counterarguments. Insults or character attacking with guilt by association does not help.

Don’t get me wrong. Insult as much as you like.. after all it is a free world and I am fully aware of the heat and kitchen argument. It’s just that it is good for readers to know where the insults are coming from and what they are all about. It goes without saying that the level of insults, inventions and character assassination attempts will be expected to increase over the coming days.

I’ll do my damn best not to bother much with anything coming my way from that corner of the net and I kindly ask readers to do the same. J’accuse goes on with its publish and be damned approach at blogging.

This wankellectual is almost done. Now for the finale… the answer you have all been waiting for:

VI

What is the difference between John Galliano and Daphne Caruana Galizia?

One tends to dress weirdly, hurl abusive insults in what sounds like an alcoholic rage and has a funny moustache when all made up…

…  the other was fired by Dior.

 

When they say let sleeping dogs lie… it doesn’t mean you have to allow them to twist the truth. – J’accuse 2011

 

ADDENDUM: Note to TYOM people. You will inevitably reproduce this post because it deals with your pet hate. I know it is useless “forbidding” you to do so because what is good for the goose is good for the gander but if you do so then also have the decency to publish this addendum:

J’accuse DOES NOT and WILL NEVER endorse, support or in any way agree with TYOM, its content or its style.This kind of site can only be a disservice to the idea of proper use of new media and to the proper development of political discussion.

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Jasmine Mediawatch

Unbelievable

They gathered today in Valletta for a peaceful demonstration of solidarity with Libya and the Libyans. They gathered to send a clear message to Muammar – Free Libya! There were Libyans and there were Maltese. There were politicians and there were journalists and opinion columnists and bloggers. And there were also members of Malta’s Moviment Graffiti. The Moviment members had prepared banners among which were banners with a photo of Malta’s Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi embracing Muammar Gaddafi. Under the photo was the word SHAME.  Another picture-less banner combined the names of Joseph Muscat and Lawrence Gonzi before the word SHAME.

The Moviment message was clear. They were not only showing their solidarity with the Libyan people but also expressing their thoughts on the leaders of this country who have entertained the Libyan oppressor in the past. Being the aggressive youth that they are they were more intent on “shaming” the leaders than on hanging their own heads in shame in the name of all the Maltese people who went along with their leaders. But hey – it’s their banner, their expression….

Enter the gurus of Maltese journalistic scene Lou Bondi and Daphne Caruana Galizia. The Times reports that they “protested immediately”. Against what exactly? Bondi is seen in the video telling an activist that “Qed tgerrex in-nies” (You are sending people away). What people exactly? People who cannot bear to be reminded that even their leaders coaxed the Libyan leader and did business with him? Who wants that kind of people in the protest anyway. Surely Daphne will agree. After all she has spent much of the last part of February reminding us of Labour’s not too cosy bedding with Muammar.

What sorry excuse were we to hear now? That the protest is in Solidarity with the Libyan people? Is that the same Libyan people that feel betrayed by the west and its governments and the dealings they have had with the oil rich nation to the detriment of its citizens? Is the solidarity just words? What bullshit.

Andrew Borg Cardona piled on the venom from his blog in the Times:

Would I have joined my friends Lou Bondi and Daphne Caruana Galizia in protesting at Moviment Graffiti’s cheap, childish, hypocritical, myopic and generally revolting little stunt? Their stunt cheapened not only Graffiti themselves, if cheapening what is now obviously worthless is even possible, but diluted, even if only very slightly, the cause they were pretending to uphold.

I’m still waiting for my comment on that particular blog post to appear but I’m not holding my breath. Childish, hypocritical, myopic? I wonder who’s who.