One of the basic tenets of journalism that probably everybody and his brother has heard about is the principle of the 5 “W”s. It’s a concept that underpins the writing of a complete investigative answer by asking the questions “Who? What? Where? Why? and When?” and trying to provide an answer to all of them or an at least an indication as to why those answers were not immediately available. The additional question “How?” has occasionally been pinned onto the back of the original 5 Ws. In my last but one post “Don Paolo and the Recalcitrant Consiglieri” I started to track the “Nikki Dimech Gate” story and the reporting being made by MaltaToday on the subject. I tried to point out that the information being made available by the eager sleuths at MT is flimsy and lends itself more to unqualified speculation rather than presentation of hard and fast facts.
Now I am sure that MT’s sleuths have launched into the investigation with the best intentions of remaining the much needed breath of fresh air in investigative journalism that goes beyond the pure partisan aspects which we have gotten used to over the ages. I do not need convincing over this as much as I do not need convincing that MT has a mixed agenda of its own (known in polite circles as “editorial policy”) that merges market necessity (the need to quench public thirst for conspiracy theory style news/scandal – defined as any bit of news that provokes the reaction “X’gharukaza”) and a hazy political position that cannot be as easily and wittily summarised.
There is however something that Professors DeGaetano and De Marco would call a continuous crime of ommission occuring within this particular spate of reporting on DimechGate. While we should thank our lucky stars that there is a team of journalists who are interested in asking questions beyond the party spin and press release this does not mean that we – especially the newcomers to the Fourth Estate such as bloggers – should not question certain vacuums in the line of thought. In the previous post we wondered why so much was being made on the supposed threat uttered by bungling PN SecGen PBO involving Dimech and a 72 year old councillors’ mother. Rationally reasoning out that threat brings out not two but three possible meanings:
1) We will eliminate your nonogenarian mother should you not comply with party policy (the mafia interpretation)
2) get off the bloody phone and talk with your mum later – we’re talking Dimechgate now (the impatient PBO interpretation)
3) we helped you rmum in so many ways and forget about that help if you persist in ignoring our position (the sleazy retraction of favours interpretation)
You will immediately notice that barring interpretation number 2 which is the milder of the three, the other two interpretations (Mafia and Retraction of Favours) qualify as forcible coercion to sign an impeachment motion. Now that is not something to be taken lightly. For PBO it could mean heaps of trouble – and I do not mean the contradiction in policy that was highlighted by the swift ostracisation of Nikki Dimech while still harbouring a 40 year old man being tried for sex crimes. Coercing a local councillor into signing a motion against his or her will is not just not kosher in today’s day and age but it could also have criminal consequences. Contrary to what public opinion may be on the subject, PLPN whips and Secretary generals are not the equivalent of their communist counterparts. They may give the impression that they can control everything under the sun (and some hidden hands like to think that they do just that) but the reality of the matter is that if we expect to be living in a liberal democracy in the 21st century then its local councillors should be free thinking human beings who can – if they so believe – go against the party line on a matter of principle.
So hurrah to MT for uncovering this particular phase. What happened next though continued to force me to question MT’s policies. When councillor Camilleri was summoned to the police station for questioning, the knee jerk reaction on MT was to slap a title to the article that went on the lines of “PBO’s threat comes true as 72 year old councillor summoned for questioning by police”. I cannot link or quote verbatim because thankfully, it seems, there has been a rethink and the original title has changed. And there is an obvious reason for this. The reason is that no matter how much you may wish to toe the line that PBO has a hidden hand in police circles and that this DimechGate has been orchestrated from the start as some sort of elaborate frame up to rid Sliema of Dimech there is one fatal flaw in standing by this argument this time: PBO has absolutely no interest in having the police go over his discussion with the Sliema councillor.
Somebody at the MT team must have noticed that because what I think is the new title to the article that appeared online yesteday is ”
Paul Borg Olivier worried as Sandra Camilleri gets called in by Police, after his threatening meeting with PN councilor”. (Yes, MT stick to their US English dictionary). Now that’s more like it. Which really means that the police have been acting very kosher all along. I have no particular interest in defending or attacking the police corps but hey you cannot blame them for investigating DimechGate from the start if there was a report of corruption by government officials and PN administration. You cannot blame the police either, for launching a possible investigation into the coercion of a public person involved in the administration of a local council. That fettering of discretion is an administrative crime and cannot be allowed to happen.MT has corrected its earlier eagerness to run along with the whole La Piovra & Don Paolo theory involving god knows what hidden hands in the process.
We are back to more rational lines where a number of questions are being asked rightly of our political system. This “mani pulite” phase in the short history of local council politics might involve the relative lightweights of PLPN politicking but it could turn out to be a valuable eye-opener as to the many no-nos committed in the name of partisan hegemony. Let us not forget that Nikki Dimech is being crucified for an alleged request for commission that would amount to a maximum of €240 (10 to 20% of €1200) and that Elizabeth Vella had to resign after receiving €80 that were not registered in the council’s accounts. By no means should such actions go unnoticed and unpunished (if you want to use that word) but this is still the same country where there is no rule on party financing and transparency and where the interests of contractors, investors and developers are curiously intertwined with the creme de la creme of our political high society (the heavyweights) right?
