Categories
Mediawatch

A Brilliant Bondi+

We know you’d never thought we’d say this but we will. Last night’s Bondi+ was brilliant. It may be that it’s because Oliver Friggieri was given practically a free rein to speak his mind about Malta and the Maltese but it is thoroughly enjoyable. Interesting insights and thoughts. Friggieri at his best. You’ve got to love his humility : “Ma hix mistoqsija facli. Ma nafx inwegibha” (when asked if party TV stations are contributing to increase the sense of partisanism.)

PS. Got to the point where Bondi expresses his new pet hate: “il-hmerijiet li taqra fuq l-internet.” He still cannot stomach the idea that there is a space which cannot be bought out for some opinions only. A repugnant interlude.

Watch it here.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse: The (rising) values of salaries

With a title like that, you’d think I’m about to kick off a whole song and dance about the “living wage” and “cost of living” and whatever other index the latest fad is in that ever so exciting corner of the universe where popular (and populist) politics crosses with economics. Nae wurries, I ain’t. The pros and cons of whether a particular wage is sufficient to get along with one’s daily life are undeniably important building blocks of a right and proper political manifesto, but what concerns me here is the return of a very noxious notion in our political constellation: the comparative analysis of earnings intended for political vantage.

It all began a few weeks ago with a seemingly innocent question that has already been dealt with in a previous column. Some smart job from the Opposition benches queried how many people in the public sector earned more than the President of Malta. The problem I had with that question at that point was precisely with the “why”. I would have loved to ask the poser of aforementioned parliamentary question: “What’s your point?” My concern was that we were being presented with the gory Trojan horse that is the mother of all evils (if not mother then a not too distant relative) in Maltese mentality, one that summarily aborts any potential for progress.

In Maltese we have a word for it − “għira” − that somehow carries much more weight than “jealousy”, as used in the language of the student-rattled Charles and Camilla. It’s the għira that features in the car sticker literal translation urging readers to “Stuff Your Jealousy” − one that can be transformed into a full blown profession “għajjur” (one who is prone to be jealous). The għira is coupled with a very local version of socialist justice that is based on the premise of “if you have one then there is no reason in the world why I should not have one too”. I may be wrong but to me this is the socialism à-la-Mintoff: that scythe of socialist ignorance that culls all progress at birth in order to keep everyone equal. Equally ignorant. Equally thrifty. Equally redneck. (Bir-rispett kollu − With all due respect).

Raise your glass

We are currently living in the Age of Garfield. It’s the Age of the Fat Cats who have a bit of a problem with the għira definition of things. Most of the times that’s because the fingers of the għira-espousing population are pointed at them in the most unqualified of manners (when they are not showing them fingers of another sort). The Fat Cats are, economically speaking, at the other extreme of the political spectrum. They delude themselves that they are revitalising and regenerating a limping economy, only to slip heavily at certain moments during which they give the impression of baking pies for their own consumption.

Torn between the Fat Cat and the Mintoffian Scythe, the citizen and voter is constantly being handed rules and standards with which to assess who to trust with the reigns of governmental planning come next election. Which is where the latest fad comes in with the noise of a raucous Maltese crowd on a package tour in some market at Misterbianco (Sicily). First it sounded like a TV programme gone wrong: “Who Wants to Earn More than Malta’s President?” and now we have the Mintoffian reaction to the Fat Cat gaffe: “Who Wants to Renege on A Salary Raise this Christmas?”.

And it’s hard to guess who is the Grinch. Is it the Scrooges on the Fat Cat benches who back then, during the highest wave of the economic crisis tsunami, showed the sensitivity of a born again Christian on a Xarabank panel and voted themselves a raise? Is it the Leader of the Opposition who, once he was informed of the impending (backdated) raise was obliged to the extremes of utmost abnegation and in an ironic twist of quasi-Thatcherite repartee, declares “This man is not for selling”? Is it the press who pounced upon initiatives in foreign parliaments (notably Ireland and Czech Republic) and reported their respective decisions to REDUCE their salary in times of economic hardship?

BERT4J_101212

Bad Moon Risin’

Whoever the Grinch may have been, we were suddenly transported into the realm of salary comparisons and comparatives. Now there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the Cabinet voting itself a raise during a period when − independently of the real economic climate − all political talk and newspeak is heavily concentrated on the notion of Hard Times is a huge faux pas for any government to commit. I also can understand Joseph Muscat’s argument of “I will not be bought”, for by including all MPs in their bumbling pay rise it is obvious that Cabinet hoped to convince the socialist progressives to keep mum thanks to the proffering of a chunk of the pie.

So let it not be said that J’accuse is here defending the timing of the salary rise per se. We do have a bone to pick though on the issue of “the values of salaries” in discussing merits and demerits. In a way, Joseph Muscat, the prime critic of the latest rise, seems to have considered this issue from a sensible vantage point when he seemed to be prepared to consider an option for MPs to choose between Part Time and Full Time. Much as I find this suggestion ludicrous, for reasons I shall explain later, it does show that for a fleeting moment Muscat was actually looking beyond the salary itself and thinking in terms of the work it justifies.

For the problem here, you see, is that I tend to view jobs on the basis of performance. On the scale of merit, performance is translated into salary and not vice-versa. You do not go out on the job market looking for a salary but you look for a job. In most cases you find that salaries are appended towards the end of a job announcement and are expressed in the form of minimum and maximum possible salary. Why? Because the salary depends on a multiplicity of criteria linked to “merit” such as education, experience and specialisation.

Rise to the occasion

Maybe I am not sufficiently clear (I admit that’s the case quite often). Just let me go back to the PQ about presidential earnings. When I ask “What’s the point?”, I mean how can the President’s salary become a standard measure to assess qualification for a job? What will we ask people who aspire to a salary that trumps that of San Anton’s resident? “Can you hop on one leg more times than George Abela?” “Can you run the mile in less time than George?” How exactly does this value of salarial comparison fit in?

According to the press, the salary of an MP post-raise will be €26,000 per annum. Shall we play the comparison game? An entry-level grade job at an EU institution (AST1) will earn around €2,500 per month in hand. By November of any given year, your average administrative assistant in an EU institution will have earned more than Karl Gouder (random MP) will earn from his parliament salary in a year. Your average employee in the EU translation services will earn around €4,500 a month (there’s a scale there too based on experience, length of service and specialisation) which puts them at around two Malta MPs worth on the socialist salary value scale.

There are enough Maltese translators in Luxembourg to be able to fill Parliament twice over. Shall we do that? After all, if they earn almost as much as two MPs put together they surely must be worth the while. Which brings me back to Joseph Muscat’s part-time/full-time dilemma. We have already experienced a national football team with a mix of pros, amateurs and part-timers, so why not a Parliament with part-timers then? Well the main point, and what nobody seems to be asking, is: “what kind of performance do we expect from our parliamentarians?”

Those great expectations

The value of salaries distracts us from this question. We discuss pounds, shillings and pence when we should be wondering whether we are being short-changed in the business of political representation. As I said on my blog, I find it easy not to be impressed by Joseph Muscat’s show of abnegation and self-denial. Whether he refuses a salary raise, or independently decides to half his current salary is of no consequence to me or any other citizen if he continues to fail to come up with concrete politics that show a new politics and direction.

It’s not the whinge of the eternal wait for a decent Opposition. It’s worse than that. This week Joseph Muscat showed us the full force of his new politics when he compared Labour’s harbouring of “capo dei capi” Gatt as a special delegate to some drug trafficker (Norman Bezzina) who was a member of a Nationalist minister’s private secretariat. As the poet sings “That’s all right, because I like the way you lie.” Next: Even Robin Hood was an outlaw.

Judging by Facebook and comments on the online news, it seems that this PLPN strategy works. They feed the minions the values with which they want us to judge them and we thankfully grovel in humble acceptance. I was expecting a movement for the beatification of Inhobbkom Joseph − our new saviour from those perfidious bumblers in government − any day now. We were dared to criticise his quasi-saintly move of sacrifice in these times of hardiness. He would not tell us to eat cake and would share humble pie around our poor man’s table. A saint before being a man.

Cut through the bullshit and the spin and you might remember that this is the man whose alternative budget leaked everywhere. The saving grace for Muscat’s alternative budget was Bondi’s hash of an unprofessional programme (the BA’s words not mine). In the short-sighted public calculation, the equation must have been simple. If Bondi was wrong then Muscat is right. Which is not the case. Yes, Bondi was unprofessional but that does not make Muscat’s alternative budget any better. It is still based on populist calculations that will not necessarily take us anywhere other than into more socialist-scythe style mire. Blessed are we to have such alternatives to the fat cats in government.

Uprisin’

And while PM Gonzi was carried aloft on the hands of our future consumers of governmental pie − those who have already been well bred to fill the ranks without nary a questioning mind − back in London students rattled and shook the car containing the heir to the realm and his madam. The surreal images of the (definitely unplanned) photo op outside Castille contrasted heavily to the rioting students in Parliament Square. They’d like to tell us that our students have it all good and that this government is still investing heavily in education.

Sure, but what values are we imparting to today’s unquestioning youth? Hold on. Maybe I know the answer to that one. If you’re going to lick and squirm your way into a job via the approved channels, make sure the salary is better than that of George Abela… and Bob’s your uncle.

Toasts

I’m raising a glass to Ronnie and Nathaniel this Sunday. Happy birthday to both. It’s the last Sunday before the Christmas holiday season really kicks in. Weather permitting (and that is half a prayer actually), the next missive will be typed from my second home in Paceville… Meanwhile I’m off to find out what Santa gets paid this Christmas.

www.akkuza.com is a non-profit, free blog full of punditry worth reading. It’s worth millions in intellectual property so plant your tent in a corner of the comment section any time you want.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

My Cousin Bondi

This is a tale of two cousins. One is a self-professed journalist who has a time slot on national television the other is a thatcherite minister in the Maltese government. J’accuse does not normally take to the “pink” style references of familial links and the like but this time the coincidental operations of two cousins – one of whom we still admire – merited an appreciative pointer from this ever cynical blog.

First was the “journalism above all bloke”. This week there was another self-referential program about… himself. Or rather about the fact that assertions made by him in an earlier program did not sell very well to a large part of the population. Bondi must have been reading the news for a couple of weeks now for he planned a program full of clips and cuts from everything under the sun. Admittedly. and sticking to his philosophy, all references he read or saw or heard were to himself and his program. So he set up a new one in order to disprove his detractors.

He had planned a lovely jubbly program complete with an interview with Finance Minister Tonio Fenech. It would be a program in which he would prove that PL’s campaign depicting him as a statistic fabricating lackey for the nationalist government is completely cuckoo. It would all be as slick as a gelled hairdo. It would be. Until Bondi discovered much to his chagrin “a few minutes before the program began” (as he repeated ad nauseam) that a welcoming delegation from the PL were waiting at the studios complete with special guest Charles Mangion.

Bondi was as surprised as Alfred Sant must have been when he saw JPO sitting in the journalist benches on that fateful afternoon. He could not call for security and have the offending intrusion on his orchestrated program removed. He would have liked to. But he could not. Instead he smiled and gave Kurt Farrugia a “ma gara xejn” nod. And so the program began. It took a bouncy Bondi a full six minutes to settle down and actually start the program – not before flushing the cameras with caveats and mumbling sorry excuses about how a presenter of his international stature had been caught pants down by a rare sly move from the PL marketing team. He would have to go ahead with the program with the “adversary” in the studio watching every step.

Throughout the first part of the program (there’s a limit to how much bull we can stomach for you readers) we could feel Bondi’s discomfort as he squirmed from one figure to the next. He jumped from “zball zghir nibdluh” to “kollha l-istess baqghu il-figuri” with the grace of a clumsy donkey ride on a hot summer beach. Whenever he felt he was losing grasp of the situation (read: the program was not going according to script) he cannonballed onto Mangion with pleas for the labour parliamentarian not to “Set the agenda”. In Bondi’s mind, anything that risks disproving his theories involves setting the agenda.

Pity that Mangion was a feeble lamb and failed to live up to the occasion. He should have damn well insisted that the Beta tape he was carrying be shown. It was after all a table of figures and not – as Bondi seemed to imply – a porn video of god know what libellous nature. That Bondi managed to brush away the presentation with a feeble: “mhux fair ghax gibtha tard” spoke volumes of the worry that had planted itself firmly in the presenter’s mind. Truth is that Bondi cannot and will not take on his critics fair and square at equal arms. He needs to dance around and manage the show with clips that can be shifted and moved around at will. Even if Bondi was right, or half right – the manner in which he chooses to refute criticism makes him stink of wrong. Very wrong.

Which brings me to the much admired (in these circles) Austin. Among the sanscouillistes even the man with half a ball is king. Gatt seems to be loaded with such attributes (we are always speaking on a metaphorical level of course – I have no idea (or interest) what Gatt carries in his pants) and as such has often borne the brunt of audacious measures. Which makes his pussyfooting and excuse mongering in the BWSC affair all the more suspicious. Unlike Cousin Bondi, Gatt has never feared opposition and a good battle and prefers to take it head on.

Reading the script of the parliamentary accounts committee interview of the Auditor General was a bit of a throwback to kafquesue big brother readings. The quizzing of the AG by Austin Gatt had a bit of a stalinist feel about them that made more noise for what was not being said than what was being said. The “smoke without fire” metaphor had been stretched beyond limits. The AG had said ab initio that while all the investigations left a stinky smell of something fishy he had not managed to put his finger on the pile of stinking fish. Why then would we need the charade of Austin Gatt asking question after question about every stage to point out that no evidence was found? Had the AG not already said that?

It sounded like Pope Urban VIII vs Galileo:

He listed almost ten stages of the entire process and the persons involved during the decision process, and after each case, he asked the Auditor if there was any evidence that these people had been corrupted.

The Auditor General replied: “there was no evidence.”

Neat isn’t it? Almost ten stages. Almost like a rosary. A litany. Stage I. No Evidence. Stage II. No Evidence. Stage III. No Evidence. Stage IV. No evidence. etc etc. Ora Pro Nobis. Turris Eburniae and all.

In view of the information available to the Audit office. No corruption was found Mifsud (the AG) said, however he did add that “there had been lack of cooperation from some people who the NAO had questioned.”

Eppur si muove right? Not really. The nationalist inquisition is probably routing for an open and shut case. Austin Gatt had skillfully (not without causing a ruckus at the PMs office) set the agenda for the PAC in much the same manner as a Bondiplus programme. The obstinacy with which he opposes the calling of forgetful witnesses (a parallel with calciopoli perhaps) is baffling. Again. Whether he is right or wrong Austin Gatt’s methodology in this business has fouled the whole reasoning. The press that Bondi scours so assiduously for references to himself have been unanimous in criticising Gatt’s modus operandi this time round. He was painfully aware of this during his interview with Herman Grech.

So there you have it. Cousins Gatt and Bondi display similar traits when it comes to attempting to control a PR exercise gone wrong. These damn Gozitans… what is it they say about burning good ones?

Quotes from MaltaToday report.

Categories
Mediawatch

Definitely not Bondi+

Here’s an interesting interview with Roberto Saviano. Look out (3 minutes plus) for the explanation on why it is important that investigative (and narrative) programs exist and more importantly that they are paid (and paid well, when they generate good returns from ads). But more importantly look out for how Saviano explains that the biggest justification for having people earning money from these programmes is that they can be judged, that we can expect standards from them and that the job is well done. Next time you complain about Bondi+ don’t get stuck on the typical Maltese pettiness of who earns what and why – remember the crucial point : the obligation Bondi and his team have to provide a quality investigative programme of real journalism. J’accuse will keep on reminding Bondi of his obligation and we will continue to bask in the idea that he actually thinks he can get away selling the idea that he is unaware of any criticism because he can’t read.

“Essere professionale significa che lo spettatore puo giudicare anche in maniera severa. Perche sei stato pagato e quindi devi dare il meglio di te.” – Saviano

Categories
Mediawatch

Clueless at Bondiplus

This has to be the facebook quote of the week. After last season’s ‘controversial’ programmes Bondi+ will be back again with more of the topical, relevant and cutting edge investigative journalism. Don’t hold your breath though, judging by today’s facebook post we are in for another mind-numbing ride:

Lou Bondi: This is the time of year when I start getting a knot in the stomach: how can we come up with another 9 months worth of topics for Bondiplus? Then the knot goes away by mid-September and before I know it its June. 18 years in the business and the same thing happens every year.

Go figure.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch

Programmes People Watch (II)

Friday on Xarabank. Where’s Everybody discusses Where’s Everybody. Fresh from their appearance at PN’s Vision 2015+ (a conference for non-politicians – whatever that may mean) Peppi and Lou debate Lou. With a little help from their friends. Here’s the “synopsis” sent round by Xarabank:

Freedom of Expression: Where to draw the line? Where is the limit? Should television programmes give space to ideas such as those of Norman Lowell or should these be censored or even banned? Xarabank discusses. Amongst others in the panel, journalist Lou Bondi, media expert Fr Joe Borg, Chief Justice Emeritus Prof Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici and National Commission Persons with Disability chairman Joseph M Camilleri.

You’ve just got to love them. Can you imagine the dilemma at Xarabank’s production team? …

Do we get Lowell?

But would getting Lowell answer the question?

OK OK. So do we get Lou?

And if we have Lou we need a media expert.

Is there anyone we can think of?

I think I heard Lou mention a Fr Joe Borg.

Ok. So it’s Lou and Joe right?

Yes. But no. But but but but that would be a bit too much like the programme on Daphne’s Blog.

What programme on Daphne’s Blog?

You know the one where they talked about everything but the blog

… ah that one. So we’ll just get two more cameo appearances – is anyone else talking about it?

Hmm… not anyone worth inviting…

let’s just get JoJo and spomeone from the disabled community – sorry. persons with disability – and have them talk about how offensive Lowell is.

Should be a good programme – after all people love controversy and Lowell.

Lowell – programmes people watch.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]