‘Norman Lowell’ Articles at j’accuse

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.

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?

spread the word:

spread the word: