Tag: media

Categories
Mediawatch

Intellectual cowardice and the constitution

MaltaToday carries a report about a man who was arraigned in court for having made what turned out to be false claims about ex-PN leadership contender Francis Zammit Dimech. The man had made these claims on Facebook and Zammit Dimech considered them to be sufficiently injurious and false as to take legal action in this regard (an action for defamation). The outcome is a slap on the hand for the man and apologies that were accepted.

When the law works like a properly oiled machine every citizen gets the service that he deserves. Not only that though, you also have to consider that the correct balance of different freedoms will eventually finds its natural or legal course. Unlike the Paywall Paper and the Indy, MaltaToday does not seem to carry the controversial reports with regards to George Vella’s statements about wanting to rein in the media. Nobody seems to have bothered to transcribe the controversial part of his address so J’accuse has gone and done that for you:

Ejja let us rein in, ejja nikkontrollaw il-media taghna. Mhux inbilli nghidu” ahna le m’ghandna xejn kontra dak u ahna pozittivi” imma imbaghad nafu li l-media taghna (stampata, viziva whatever)  tibqa’ ssawwat tibqa’ ssawwat u tikkritika…hija parti minnha. Ma nistax nghid jiena “le ahna nirrispettaw lil dak li jkun m’ahniex aggressivi” u jkollok il-midja aggressiva u min jifhem fil-midja jghallimni illi taf tkun iktar aggressiv bil-midja milli b’ilsienek u  bil-mod kif inti titkellem imma naraw illi ikun hemm dak l-element ta’… forsi jghiduli “x’ghandek kontra l-media”, il-media allahares ma kenitx, hija r-raba kolonna tad-demokrazija… però il-media responsabbli ukoll u ma nistax jien nuza l-media biex inkeskes biha minn taht biex tohloq l-opinjonijiet minn taht biex naghmel character assassinations minn taht imbaghad nigi nghid “le imma ahna irridu nikkoperaw”. Dawn huma affarijiet illi sfortunatament matul is-snin li ili hawn gew jien rajthom, ghaddejt minnhom u inhoss illi ma gewx ikkontrollati ghal kollox. U irridu noqghodu attenti ghaliex jekk kemmildarba ahna ma jkollniex kontroll fuq dawn l-ghodda illi (gustament ghaliex le) il-partiti illum ihaddmu halli jkunu jistghu iwasslu l-messagg taghhom inkunu qieghdin xorta niffomentaw id-disgwid, niffomentaw il-bad blood u ha nghid wahda halli inkun qed nirrepetiha ghall-miljun darba din : Jekk ahna l-politici ma nirrispettawx lilna infusna, il-poplu ma jirrispettaniex.

It’s a ramble that taken out of context seems to be the fruit of a sudden afterthought in the middle of a speech. Vella’s call to “rein in media” was quickly the subject of newspaper headlines – at least the Independent and the Times. The Independent now carries a clarification by Dr Vella who stated that he was referring to “self-regulation”. There was talk or mention of “breach of privilege” though that seems to have died down too. Some reflections can be made though of what actually was said (and was not said) in those few lines by our Foreign Minister.

1. The forum

George Vella chose to utter these ambiguous words in parliament. True “media taghna” presumably refers to “the media that we own” – which basically could mean the party propaganda machines. Why do so in parliament? Why mention “media” generically in the next statements? The use of phrases such as “character assassinations” is either naively stupid or an attempt at being smart. There is only one type of media that has been constantly pigeonholed as being the main culprit of character assassinations and “attakki fahxija” and that is not one owned or accountable to any of the parties.

2. Practice what you preach

If the problem were limited to the ridiculous state of the party propaganda machines Vella could do nothing better than start cleaning up the act in his own house. Assuming any journalists are left that are not currently in the employ of government then one would expect Vella to be addressing his party’s media lackeys and giving them a new task and set of standards that he so dearly aspires to. After that he could invite the PN to do the same with their own house. A speech in parliament about “media needing to be reined in” that speaks of the “fourth estate” can only be alarming because any excuse is possible to suddenly have parliament assuming the role of regulator and censor.

3. Publish and be damned

Vella’s outburst can be excused because it seems to have been an off the cuff, unprepared set of remarks. Then again this is the foreign minister speaking in parliament. He may have the fault of not being a lawyer and not understanding the import of each and every word that he will utter but that is no excuse at this level. It could only get worse should he really consider to unearth the tool (weapon?) of parliamentary privilege rather than use a press conference to clarify his statements (hopefully in a credible manner). (see Indy report on breach of privilege)

4. Intellectual cowardice

The fear that the parties and their followers have of the power of some sections of the media is incomprehensible. The elephant in the corner in Vella’s speech is another Vella (albeit née Vella). The obsession with the Caruana Galizia’s and Borg Cardona’s of this world has become one gigantic ridiculous mountain. It has led people to confuse free and open discussion, to ignore the basic protections that exist at law should they require them and above all to ignore the fact that blogs and bloggers only have power when people give much value to what they write.

Unlike many of my colleagues I will defend the right of every single blogger to publish and be damned especially if there is an infinitesimal risk that through some rare moment of insight shining from among  a myriad bullshit posts  that blogger could function as another tool in this fourth pillar of democracy.

The gullible willingness of sections of the population who would willingly accede to Vella’s requests to “rein in and control” shocks me a million times more than some ridiculous pink magazine style blog posts about the latest antics of one of our public figures. Even more shocking is the intellectual cowardice of many who would fear speaking out openly against any attempt to introduce regimes that stifle thought and expression with some pithy excuse of protecting the public.

Categories
Mediawatch

This wall is on fire

Kurt Sansone’s Sunday morning article introducing the Times’ (of Malta) new premium scheme kicks off with a tenuous comparison to the introduction of the Rediffusion a good 77 years ago. Biblical scholars tell us that the number 77 signified a very large number as in Jesus’ affirmation “I tell you, not just seven times, but seventy seven times!”. Aeons if you like. The introduction of the rediffusion is in fact not just the matter of another century but in technological terms it is comparable to prehistory. You can get radio anywhere now – especially via internet. I recently discovered the strange experience of driving through forests in Luxembourg while listening to eight-ninety-seven-bay… thanks to an internet connection hooked onto the car sound system.

What rediffusion did was bring wireless entertainment to many homes. I’m not sure whether Kurt opted for the aesthetic/nostalgic approach before dropping the bomb and announcing that “It is within this scenario that timesofmalta.com will from to­morrow offer its readers premium content against payment, a first for any Maltese news website.” That’s another record broken, or should I say broken record? Kurt moves on to examine the “ruffled feathers” and follows this up with the question: ” Should news content delivered by media organisations over the internet remain free?”

It turns out that breaking news will still be accessible (that’s the top part of the TOM page – the one most prone to errors caused by expediency) but the rest will be accessible only once you pay to get through the firewall*. So in actual fact what you would have to pay for is the analysis and blogs and maybe the odd bit of odd news – the rest you could read anyway. Which is just as well given how the Independent has upped its updating frequency and seems to be serving the purpose of immediate news provision just fine – which would make the Times charging for the very same news ridiculous (also considering the other news websites available for public consumption).

So what can we really make of this premium site move? To begin with you do get a feeling that the guys at the Times think a tad bit too much of themselves and their content. The suspicion that you get is that the Times had lured the multitude of commentators (that it insists on calling bloggers) into some form of addiction and is now hoping that they will be willing to pay to sustain their habit. In recent months it was also evident that the Times was delaying the uploading of most content that was not breaking news even more. Sunday articles would only be up on Monday – giving us online commentators a hard time to keep up with the “opinion” corners.

Did the Times gain anything economically from this move? I wouldn’t know. What I can say is that the move is a huge gamble – one that could deliver a sucker punch to the ego of the whole set up at Allied Newspapers. Unlike the printed paper that many faithful readers would buy out of habit on any given Sunday, the payment for online content seems to require a different level of commitment. When one considers the alternatives online and the actual quality of what is being offered by the Times itself it is hard to see how easily internet users would part with even a tiny sum to fall in line with the Times new premium policy.

The Times also forgets one major detail. The “breaking news” bit that is free is a common currency that can be found elsewhere. If anything the Times should have been using its additional “exclusive” content to lure more readers while boosting its advantage through the sale of advertising. The dastardly combination of addicted commentators and free riders should have meant that the Times was steadily building a huge audience – one that should be translated to advertising revenue. What the Times seems to be preferring to do is to slay the goose – sure you get rid of the “scum” (and avoid having to employ a comments censor) but you are risking to get rid of the whole base upon which your online business should have been built.

Much of what is happening can be attributed to a very Maltese way of thinking about knowledge and power when it comes to the media. The traditional media houses still think very much in term of controlling the way information comes out and is presented. From the Times to MaltaToday to the Malta Independent it is the same story that only varies very slightly. The Times has gone one step ahead – charging for what it deems to be premium news. The mentality is sadly very much in the style of Rediffusion  seventy-seven years back – the notion of one-way traffic of information controlled at source that is deemed by the provider to be the “best possible wireless entertainment”. We beg to differ.

Come to think of it there’s a lesson that Times readers could learn from a great wall builder. When the Chinese built their Great Wall most thought that it was meant to keep invaders out. In actual fact its main purpose was to keep the Chinese in.

* It has been pointed out to me by experts in the field that the term “firewall” is not an accurate description of the Times’ premium scheme. The actual name is a paywall. I wrote the article labouring under the illusion that a paywall is a type of firewall that requires payment to be overridden – much like the troll-ridden toll bridges of lore. In this case it turns out that payment for access to a troll-ridden site means that it is a paywall. Apologies for the confusion.

Categories
Internet Rights Values

World day against Cyber Censorship

The 12th of March is the World day against cyber censorship. The tools of the digital age have thrown back the frontiers of darkness and ignorance that have previously been used to keep whole populations in check. Reporters Without Borders and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are two organisations that are active in the ongoing battle for freedom of information particularly in the battle against the use and abuse of laws to silence or block the digital (cyber) modes of expression. The Arab Spring and the continuous struggle in China both prove that digital activism can be effective especially in countries where the freedom of expression is a luxury. You may be familiar, for example, with the work of Yoani Sanchez – the Cuban dissident blogger who has become a symbol of freedom of expression in a country that was obsessed with control of information.

It is not just the standard totalitarian regimes who have trouble with information. Even the healthiest of democracies might suffer bouts of allergic intolerance to the independent minded expression of ideas. Again, a combination of ignorance that is nurtured by the establishment and abuse of freedoms based on a misunderstanding of their value  would contribute to the fouling of an atmosphere of open expression and intellectual engagement.

On a more local level the recent events on the day of silence might be misconstrued as a formal attempt to gag the new participants in the social discourse. That would be mistaken. The rule of silence (or reflection) might be an archaic rule but is a law of the land just the same. It is not a blanket censorship that exists eternally but a particular moment of silence imposed with what might be a misguided motivation but is a rational motivation just the same. Whether or not the day of silence can still serve its purpose in the digital age of facebook and twitter (or whether it should be extended to such means) is not really a matter of censorship with political ends but really a obvious example of a law that needs updating to take into consideration the modern circumstances. This is all the more necessary in the absence of objective interpretations that could per se have sufficed to fill such a lacuna.

A dangerous situation is created when rules such as the rule of reflection are abused of by parts of the political establishment in order to make whatever political capital they might deem fit. Such a danger is aggravated if members of the executive forces (whose duty it is to protect and serve) and members of the fourth estate (journalists whose duty would be to objectively investigate) become witting or unwitting co-conspirators in such an abuse of the legal provisions.

On this World Day Against Cyber Censorship J’accuse would like to reiterate a fundamental disagreement with the current laws affecting expression during election campaigns in Malta. This includes the rules appertaining to silence on the day before and on the day of elections, the rules covering the “balancing of opinions” on public broadcasting, the rules regulating the funding of political party campaigns and the lack of rules (or lack of application thereof) covering the blatant abuse and violation of digital rights with regards to the collection and reuse of personal digital data.

Happy World Day Against Cyber Censorship.

Blog… and be damned!

 

(illustration is an adaptation of the Reporters Without Frontiers cover to their report on Cyber Censorship)

Categories
Mediawatch

Wikileaks à-la-carte

The Maltese blogging scene is nowadays taken for granted as a major participant in the field of information processing. The Blogosfera is as varied as ever, covering a panoply of interests with the occasional blog or two getting its moment of limelight within a particular sphere. markbiwwa.com recently let out a rant about the dos and donts of blogging (and what’s wrong with the word “blogosphere”). It’s been some time now that conceited bloggers like myself (wankellectuals) have been a proverbial pain in the arse for mainstream media pointing out flaws, errors and journalistic faux pas.

Melahart was at it this week commenting on the selective editing that seems to be the trend in some papers (Media manipulation…) while Rich Muscat Azzopardi also had a good point to make about the Times’ trend to becoming a click-hunting site above all (Rightly So). I’ve got some bad news for Rich. His autopsy on local journalism comes a little too late.. J’accuse had proclaimed it dead a while back after a particularly jarring episode of Bondiplus regarding Plategate.

The role of blogs and bloggers in filling the vacuum of investigative journalism is what triggered off this post in actual fact. Given how most media establishments in the country are agenda-driven or just downright lazy, the levels of investigative journalism have fallen to an all time low. Blogs and bloggers (not Times trolls mind you) might just be in the right place to fill the gap.

Take the Running Commentary. Back after the traditional end of summer pause, Daphne has set her sights on a deal between Polidano and Mintoff’s offspring. In her first post on the subject Daphne called for a Public Inquiry. The facts mentioned in the posts relating to the issue are just that: facts. They are publicly available to anyone wishing to discover them – in the archives of MEPA to begin with.

Now I do not believe that Daphne spent her little sabbatical recovering from the trauma of Mintoff’s passing away looking through random archive of the MEPA records. What probably happened is that somebody (a mole, a snitch, a leaker,… whatever) passed on this information to Daphne with the intention of getting as much public coverage for this bit of news. Used to be such news would go to a media outlet but then again… given the subject matter what better place to go to than Malta’s blog with most hits?

Am I saying it is wrong? Not at all. Expect more of this phenomenon as things get to a head. A while back we had also featured a Polidano related post on J’accuse. In March we were writing “Polidano Can, if he thinks he can” pointing out the rough manners in which Polidano literally bulldozers over our planning laws. In that case too I had received a pointer as to some illicit night time action in which Polidano was engaging in some property close to Zmerc in Balzan – what prompted me to give particular attention to the matter.

The network of blogs – with different affiliations, orientations or independent minded persons – that has developed over time might end up with Malta having its very own unofficial network of Wikileaks. What worries me is that each blogger will have a sieve of their own with regard to what information can or cannot be published. Expect blogs associated to the mainstream parties to be very selective as to when to make a noise about information in their possession. Expect others to proceed cautiously as they are drawn closer and closer to the limelight of lawsuits, libel proceedings and other “democratic” mechanisms of silencing the truth.

Expect, in other words, the development of a network of Wikileaks à-la-carte. Probably not the best of worlds but already going a long way into filling the gap left by a media system that is either dead or in a long coma. Or in the case of the Times… busy chasing the cheap click.

Categories
Rubriques

I.M. Jack – The March Hare contd.

2. The Law is an Ass

Or is it? One effect of the multiplication of immediately available information has been the massive impact that this has had on the interaction between the demos and the institutional framework that represents them. By this I mean that what is commonly referred to as “the people” tends to give more and more input on the processes that exist in a democratic environment. I would hazard to state that for a very long time one major imperfection of democracy functioned to its advantage and longevity. This imperfection was the practical impossibility of involving everyone and everything in every single decision that needed to be taken within the framework of separation of powers.

A new advert by the Guardian called “Three Little Pigs” (see below) turns out to be a perfect illustration of what I mean here. The majority of information reaching us comes from the traditional media (or in some cases citizen journalists) and then these “facts” that have been reported are given the demo-treatment. Reactions – indignation, satisfaction, summary judgements etc – might even influence the follow-up to a news item. All the while the usual machinery of the state might be interacting with a particular news item : a crime? a sporting achievement? a public blunder by a public person? an injustice to a citizen?

Where does this take us? I believe that the current shift is crucial to the redefinition of a major democratic paradigm. It’s as if you could check in on your accountant/lawyer’s/doctor’s work on a daily basis and you suddenly tried to influence how he or she goes about the job. The rules and structures behind democratic processes are what binds us all and keeps us a step away from chaos. If, for example, we suddenly all had a say about how a day in the court should run we would steamroll over procedures that have been developed to guarantee and safeguard a multiplicity of rights. The same goes with reporting in newspapers, decisions on governance and governability and more. The danger is further confounded when public judgements are made on the basis of political expediency or allegiance. Reason and social mores are put aside so long as we can shoot from the hip about the “inadequacy of legislation” – forgetting that there is a process behind the formation of such legislation that guarantees stability.

3. Owen Bonnici and Students’ House

This bit of news in the Times got my blog fingers itching and is a perfect example of the cavalier attitude that the modern band of politicians have towards the guarantees of the law and more.

Labour MP Owen Bonnici has asked for an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee or the Auditor-General into whether government rules were broken when parts of Students’ House at the University were handed to the University Students’ Council, which then rented them out for commercial purposes.

Now I admit that having been KSU President I might have a considerable advantage over Owen in this one but the story jars on many a point. Let’s begin with the basic. The most basic. KSU is an autonomous organisation – one of the oldest in Malta having been founded back in 1901. The good operation of the Students’ Council requires that it operates free from outside pressure and that includes the administrative organs of the University of Malta, not to mention the government. I hate to go down this line because it plays into the retro-fetish of nationalist enthusiasts but one of the greatest coups to safaguard KSU’s (at the time SRC’s) autonomy occurred in the 70’s under – you guessed it – Mr Mintoff.

At the time SRC ran the house now known as the NSTS Building in Saint Paul’s and Mintoff wanted to get his hands on this prize property at a time when most Uni assets were up for grabs. What happened next was that a foundation was created (the NSTF) with the SRC as one of its members. Technically speaking NSTF is still a branch of KSU with KSU still participating actively in the management of the foundation. The foundation kept the property an arms breath away from the meddling government at the time. Why do I mention all this? It is important to understand the issue of autonomy of the student body and that Dar l-Istudent on Campus is for all intents and purposes a KSU managed property (I hesitate to say owned).

Which brings me to Owen and his “reporting”. What public accounts? What auditor-general? Would Owen be so kind as to ask the same gentlemen to initiate an investigation on the Labour and Nationalist parties in order to examine whether their management of financial affairs is tip-top? Why doesn’t he? Owen’s insistence is a bit like inviting Alexander Ball over to Malta to protect us from the evil French. We all know what happened for the next 264 years.

So there are suspicions about the current committee’s handling of tenders? Deal with it in the appropriate forum. Sure the latest generation of party lackeys on both sides of the spectrum will make a meal out of it as they have tended to do since the PLPN colleges   planted more and more idiots from their school of bipartisan thought. What needs to be done in this case is to gather a movement of students who will vote the suspect batch out of the representative organ and then presumably replace them with persons who can properly manage students’ house. If the students do not turn out to vote in that manner then there is nobody else to blame.

Bonnici’s act simply threatens the very autonomy of the student council and its rights of administration and management that were acquired over a long time after a series of tough battles by the predecessors of the current executive. It’s a wrong move that can only benefit Bonnici’s exposure but one that the students will ultimately end up regretting: if the PAC or Auditor-General follow through on the absurd request that is.

 

Categories
Mediawatch

The State of Censorship (a preview)

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

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

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

For reference here is Saviour Balzan’s latest rant: