Categories
Articles

J'accuse: Say Cheese

At the beginning of the 20th century, Eastman Kodak introduced the Brownie camera in an effort to encourage families and consumers to “capture moments in time” without being too concerned with the amateurishness of their photographic efforts. The “kodak moment” was the photographic equivalent of carpe diem and had that kind of breakthrough effect on consumers as happened with such historic products as the Model T and the iPod. With an eye through the viewfinder and a click of the index finger, the user would capture an image that would last forever – and the camera for the masses was born.

The iPod, iPhone and iPad have been charting a new path in consumer trends for some time now, as homo sapiens makes the best use of his opposable thumb and index finger to feed on the benefits of mass communication. With a tap, a swipe or pincer movement, the news of the world is at your fingertips. It’s not just that, the idea of “Apps” – versatile applications that can do anything from convert units to replacing a spirit level to identify songs by just “listening to them” – has revolutionised the potential of the homo sapiens’ pocket. The iPhone is Apple’s answer to Baden Powell’s “Be Prepared” and MacGyver rolled into one.

And boy, has Apple begun to reap the rewards. It was announced this week that Apple is officially bigger than Microsoft. The Apple Revolution, masterminded by the prophet Steve Jobs, has now reached a very particular milestone for a company that was on the verge of shutting down and bankruptcy less than 20 years ago. They may be slightly elitist in their outlook (their philosophy is not to sell cheap but to sell desirable) but hey… to paraphrase the man from Apple Studios (no particular relation)… Apple is now more popular than Jesus.

Jesus Saves

Apple was still 10 years from being established and England were fresh World Cup winners when John Lennon sparked what came to be dubbed “The Jesus Controversy” when he observed that the Beatles had become “more popular than Jesus”. His declaration provoked the usual hysteric effect on the more religious members of the global community, who engaged in anti-Beatle protests, much vinyl burning and even the issuing of physical threats. Ever since the times of Cyril of Alexandria and the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, an angry Christian crowd has never been the most ‘Christian’ of customers.

We witnessed some hysteria of our own in the flaming controversy regarding cohabiting couples and communion. Frankly, the biggest lesson to be had from this controversy is that the lessons in religious doctrine are not exactly having the expected effects. Any self-respecting Roman Catholic should know the dos and don’ts of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The moment someone pointed out that cohabiting couples do not qualify so easily for communion should not have been a eureka moment but rather a simple reminder.

It’s not like the man formerly known as Saul never came to our islands. Admittedly, he never wrote any letters to us in the same way he wrote to the learned peoples of Corinth, but that does not mean that we can overlook their content. It was in a letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11: 27-29) that Paul wrote: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

Now there goes that conscience bit again. It’s quite important methinks, as the Catholic Church does not employ bouncers and lie detectors to patrol its aisles in search of the unworthy sinner for whom communion is not kosher. The Catholic Church explains its precepts and then leaves it up to you and the Jiminy Cricket in your head to work out the maths (erm, OK – metaphysics). Which is why all the protests are in vain. If the protesters so disagree with the Church’s disdain of a life outside matrimony or homosexuality (when practised) and more, then they are cordially invited to look elsewhere for their spiritual fulfilment. Others have been there before them – notably a certain Martin Luther way back in the 16th century – and it could spare them the hassle of having to reason with modern day Cyrils who believe they have some direct exclusive tap for the love of God.

Smile – through gritted teeth

A remark left on my blog this week pointed out that while there is a rather daunting economic crisis out there, “ Malta can afford to discuss communion to cohabitants, hypothetical coalitions, Daphne Caruana Galizia, Lou Bondi and whether secularism is a disease.” And Fausto has a point. It is true that Malta’s most talked about blog has retreated to the Lilliputian disquisitions as to the proper pronunciation of the Maltese word for ricotta (I say rikotta, you say irkotta) and that our talk show hosts are known to shy away from taking the proverbial bull by the horns (do check out this week’s Dissett though – it’s all about the humungous cock-up on student funds: you can bet on Mr Bugeja asking the pertinent questions) but there’s a world outside waiting to be discovered.

Cheesy issues apart, there really is a dark cloud still assembling out there and I don’t mean Eyjafjallajokull’s latest tantrum. For the life of me I still cannot figure out what part of the Vision 2015 is a tangible project and not simply a label to slap onto any idea that looks vaguely promising, but my biggest worry is that the dark cloud will hit Malta with the fury of a Eurovision contestant scorned and it will not be good. Austerity measures are the vogue all over Europe and they too might not be enough. Only yesterday, news was out that credit agency Fitch had devalued Spain’s credit rating, notwithstanding its €15 billion worth of budget measures.

Spain joins Portugal at the AA+ level (down from AAA – credit ratings sound suspiciously like battery types) and this was not good news for the Iberian strugglers fiercely battling the economic downturn. A brilliant write up on Gavin Hewitt’s Europe blog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/) describes the “battle of ideas” that Europe might be facing: governments introducing the necessary austerity measures and unions raring for strikes and countermeasures. Spain, Italy and France all face potential general strikes to battle the reform plans and we all know of Angela Merkel’s woes. Meanwhile, at eurobase, Manoel Barroso has hooked onto the idea that this is Europe’s existential moment – do or die. It is not just the euro that is in peril but the whole project, as the mantra of “integration or bust” is put firmly to the test. What of the battle between “national interest” and “solidarity”? Will populism finally trump the lot? And will our leaders – actual or potential – fall from the clouds and get cracking?

bert4j_100530 copy

Snapshots

This is really a time to have information at your fingertips and the iPad has just landed in Europe and promises to do just that and more. This week I witnessed the fascinating transformation of the UK Times portal and the aggressive marketing that the iPad got simply by having pages and pages of print in different papers vying to explain to their clients how they will be accessible on the new technology too. Is the iPad a crystallisation of the Kodak moment? Is the iPaper the 21st century’s answer to the Kodak moment?

The answer might (hopefully) not lie solely in the hands of the Apple church and its prophets. The democratisation of the technology might be faster this time around and I am quite sure Apple knows that too. The habits will be here to stay though – and the news industry is among the first to take note. Expect experimentation with fees for online reading very soon after the initial honeymoon. You will get addicted to scrolling down your iScreen to read the latest edition of your paper and then you will be charged for the service. As it should be after all… for your conscience should be enough to tell you that one does not feed from the altar of information without paying a price.

So long as you don’t sell your soul to the devil, I’d say it’s all kosher. Now… stand still and say “irkotta”…

www.akkuza.com has cameras on its mind this week. Come take a few (snap)shots and capture the moment – warm refreshments will be provided.

Categories
Arts Mediawatch

Say Cheese

The Spanish parliament has just made EUR 15b worth of budget cuts (by one vote) and Malta can afford to discuss communion to cohabitants, hypothetical coalitions, Daphne Caruana Galizia, Lou Bondi and whether secularism is a disease. Damned lucky country. – Fausto Majistral

Categories
Mediawatch

Selective Defence is Bondi's Plus

J’accuse has received a copy of Lou Bondi‘s defence argument before the Broadcasting Authority. It makes for very very interesting reading. Much as we would like to enter the debate on the issue of whether or not Lowell should have been allowed on the programme (and elsewhere we have done just that), we are more intrigued by the manner in which this ‘apologia’ continues to expose Lou’s selective amnesia as well as double-standards with regards to the weight of public opinion.

You will find below a link to the full document presented by Lou Bondi to the BA and you might like to read through it with particular attention to point 12 – regarding public opinion. Two questions stand out: firstly that Lou is arguing a technical point based on the very public opinion he chose to minimise in the Delimara program (Programmes People Watch).

Then there is the blatant selective amnesia – such as has been displayed before on the occasion of the infamous Plategate Bondiplus programme. Just look at point 12 of Lou’s apologia: first he quotes media guru Joe Borg and then he quotes an article in the Times – referring to the comments section. Having thus exhausted (according to Lou) all instances where his programme was mentioned and criticised he concludes:

Jidher car li ftit hafna kienu dawk li argumentaw li l-programm ma’ kellux isir. Interessanti wkoll li hafna minn dawk li qalu li l-programm kellu jsir, jikkritikaw, anki bl-ahrax, lil NL.

Brilliant. But false. Lou would like everybody to believe it. He probably believes it himself but the problem is tha this very forum chronicled the response in the mainstream media for you in the post entitled Gurnalizmu fuq Kollox (The Sunday Quotes). Claire Bonello, Mikela Spiteri and Tanja Cilia – all on the Times – and the Indy in a report all mentioned and criticised Bondiplus without any qualms.

You will notice of course that this assessment of all that Lou left out does not include the boringly irrelevant reality of the “peclieqa” on blogs… still, even without that proof you can see how selective Lou has been.

If you want a wider assessment of public opinion then dive to the wiked site youropenbook.org and input “norman lowell”. J’accuse has done it for you just click here. Scroll down to the period on and after 3rd May and see for yourself.

The farce continues….

Click to open the “Risposta BA re: Lowell” file.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Mediawatch

Programmes People Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Politics

The Right to think Racist

Lou Bondi has been forced to justify his choice of interviewing Norman Lowell after the BA Authority accused Bondiplus of violating the Broadcasting Act and subsidiary legislation aimed at ensuring the promotion of racial equality.

Presenter Lou Bondì insisted yesterday he chose to interview Mr Lowell in order to delve beyond his thoughts on illegal immigration and help the Maltese understand the full force of the horrors of racism. “I am convinced that the best way of dealing with objectionable ideas is to discuss them, investigate them and expose them…,” he said. (Times)

Well. If the best way of dealing with objectionable ideas is to discuss them, investigate them and expose them I guess we should expect many more discussions on a large number of PLPN policies in the coming weeks. Of course we did not expect Lou to inform the BA that Norman was the only subject he could think of and that the investigative minefield (administrative law, tendering procedures, interested party amnesia, party interests etc) posed by the awarding of the BWSC contract was too complicated a task when compared to just putting a man with objectionable ideas on prime time national TV and letting him talk.

This nonsense of fining, shutting up and gagging people who have different ideas must stop. If our only way of countering their arguments is by obliterating them from view then we have reached a sad point in our society. Let him speak I say. The day we elect a crazed right winger to parliament then only one thought comes to mind: we deserve it.

I cannot fathom how we can talk of representative democracy on one hand and then engineer the rules to twist the representation to obliterate ugly elements. By that standard I’d like to see less and less of PLPN in the current format: how about defining them as objectionable too?

Lou is guilty of contributing heavily to the mediocrity of national discourse and engagement. He should not pay for this via some ridiculous assault on the freedom of expression. He cannot use this as his defence but frankly I think it is much stronger than his objectionable nonsense.

***

ADDENDUM

I had almost missed this one since I stopped checking on this column some time back but hey, curiosity pays. Another opinion on the Bondiplus Lowell farce.

This time it’s a friend of Lou’s doing the run down – and you can tell the extreme difficulty Joe had in constructing a critical argument to blame PBS, the producers (not Lou?)  or anyone but Lou (you just have to love the “presenters of lesser stature than Lou” (does he mean shorter?))….

Anyways here is what Media Expert (Fr) Joe Borg had to say about the programme. Do note – PBS must publicly apologise for the mistake. Lou, the poor man, is just a cog of certain stature in the big wheels of the machinery.

What irked me most about the programme was its lack of context which could have perhaps justified the hurt caused because of some overriding public interest. A friend of mine smsed me with the question: is there a survey going on now? His is a very cynic position. Many people will accuse Lou of selling himself for ratings. I do not share this position. I am sure that the reasons Lou had for producing the programme were good and praiseworthy. I think he did it believing the programme would discredit Lowell. I do not doubt his intention but I also believe that he was totally off the mark.

I fear that now presenters of lesser stature than Lou would invite Lowell to their programme as this is how the media circus works. They would not be as prepared as Lou was and consequently Lowell would fare better in such programmes. This would give Lowell more publicity.

Lowell is a nobody. Election result after election result showed that he has not succeeded in riding the xenophobic attitude of many Maltese. He has been given his fair share of exposure which could have then been justified by the argument that people had to be informed about the monstrosity of his ideas. To-day, I think, that argument is no longer valid. He is just a fringe politician spouting hate. There is no place for the propagation of hate on public service TV.

PBS should take an editorial decision that Lowell would not be given coverage on the station barring exceptional circumstances due to some overriding public interest.

Would I be asking too much if I urge PBS to publicly apologise for this mistake?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]