Muscat and his Panama collective are not getting on too well with the press right now. Unless you ask the right questions you will be faced with a barrage of childish word play and incosequential “answers” that are anything but. When none of the stonewalling and feigned misunderstandings works, Muscat shifts to aggressive gear and, as in the case of the Frendo journalist who would not stop asking questions, threatens with legal action. “Be careful, you might expose yourself to libel” is the latest trick of this most liberal of government leaders who has civil rights to heart.
Well we have news for Joseph Muscat. Libel requires publication or broadcast of an assertion. A question that remains unanswered can hardly constitute libel material. This bullying must stop and if it does not stop it must be ignored by those putting the question for the threat is ineffective.
In his speech as outgoing rector of the University, Professor Juanito Camilleri addressed the issue of migration, instructing students to make good use of the knowledge and skills they acquire at University. It could not and should not have been otherwise. The University should be churning out informed citizens who are better equipped to face the realities of this world. What struck me though was the distinct difference in emphasis that the editors of two English dailies made – at least in the online headlines – when reporting this speech (the third, MaltaToday, seems to have limited itself to reporting the number of students that have been added to the Uni count).
The Times of Malta ran with “Fight hatred and intolerance through knowledge, rector tells university students” – a direct reference to one of the problems that afflict the country. Only last week we were chronicling this on this blog and mentioning the importance of fighting misinformation with knowledge. Ignorance begets darkness and informed campaigns beget light. The Times editor/reporter made the right choice here, emphasizing the crux of what Professor Camilleri was on about in his last address to the students on opening day. The message was picked up and carried by the paper – not that it had to of course, but it is arguably part of the mission of the press on this island where bigotry too often raises its voice to the detriment of sane discussion.
The Malta Independent on the other hand opted for a more sensational approach. In doing so it went rather in the opposite direction of what Professor Camilleri was advocating. The headline on the Independent read: University rector says migration in the Med so far ‘not even an appetizer of things to come’ . Did Prof Camilleri say that? Well of course he did. He spoke of the geopolitical realities of the African continent and that demographic and political pressures could eventually lead to more population movements and increases in population density in the Mediterreanan region. Why he said that seems to have been completely overlooked by the Indy reporter – in deference to the need to shock and pander to the gods of sensationalism and feed the gullible. Instead of focussing on the tools that Prof Camilleri was offering and highlighting, instead of stressing the need to be informed and fight hatred and intolerance through knowledge, the Indy headline (food for the lazy browsers) feeds the ugly part of the “threat of an invasion that is to come” by picking the armageddon-like statement out of context.
Is it fair journalism? Debatable. Is it right for J’accuse to make such a fuss out of this. Well, to be honest yes. This is just the kind of lazy labelling that feeds into the mouths of the “patrijotti maltin”. It is the kind of reporting that is based on terror-mongering rather than a quest for reasoned solution and discussion of the situation. It ends up with the leader of a nation taking up his time at the UN (between photo shoots with celebs along with the caravan of freeriders) closing ranks with rightist leaders like Viktor Orban calling for global quotas on migrants – taking his coffee smelling business into the halls of the world. In short, it all ends in a humanistic disaster.
“If he were allowed contact with foreigners he would discover that they are creatures similar to himself and that most of what he has been told about them is lies. The sealed world in which he lives would be broken, and the fear, hatred, and self-righteousness on which his morale depends might evaporate. It is therefore realized on all sides that however often Persia, or Egypt, or Java, or Ceylon may change hands, the main frontiers must never be crossed by anything except bombs.”- George Orwell, 1984
The UK Parliament is under huge pressure (including a looming deadline) to enact new measures that would regulate the behaviour of newspapers. The highly controversial measures have seen an increase in cross-party negotiations as the Lib-Dems (Tory partner in government) seem to prefer an alignment with Miliband’s Labour on this one. Labour, on its own part is not too keen to be seen working comfortably with Clegg’s party for the simple reason that it would prefer to send out the image of a party that could govern alone.
It is not just our “fledgling” 50 year old parliamentary democracy that has trouble working out the difference between legislative representation and governance. Coalitions and possible difficulties they carry have nothing to do with the real problem here. Only the short-sighted would pin the trouble on the existence of the coalition. Cameron, in fact, is having to also deal with 20 rebel MPs (at least) and that surely proves that the controversial subject is one of those that causes rifts and alliances beyond the lines of government vs opposition in any case.
What is more interesting in fact is the nature of the ongoing debate – whether or not the press should be controlled by statute or by charter. The repercussions of statutory control are enormous since the chances that MPs become the ultimate guardians of the free press would be higher in such a case. The problem of such a scenario is that this would put serious limits on the freedom of the press itself – the risks of the abuse of the power by MPs would end up creating an unnecessary muzzle of imaginary censorship.
A Royal Charter setting up an independent body could be the most amenable solution in the circumstances. It would ensure that one of the entities that must be scrutinised by the press does not suddenly have control over their freedom of expression. By way of example, the British Broadcasting Corporation was set up by Royal Charter.
The danger of having parliamentary control over the press can never be sufficiently highlighted. Dealing with this in a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy is all the more important – and the danger of having a relativist idea of fairness dominate true principles of justice and rights is a clear and present danger. Not just on the embankment in London.
There can be absolutely no doubt that this rise to commercial greatness was partly made possible by those freedoms won in the 18th century – an independent judiciary; habeas corpus; freedom of assembly; the right of voters to choose their representatives; and above all the freedom of the press to speak truth to power: to ridicule, to satirise – even to vilify – and to expose wrongdoing. – Boris Johnson on the rise to greatness of London.
Hermes the classical Greek God − and not the modern sartorial homonym − had “messenger of the Gods” as his main job description. Clad in nowt but his birthday suit, and often depicted with wingèd limbs, his main business was supposed to be that of the transmission of information among the deities busy playing with the dice of fate and generally fornicating with the more pleasurable parts of the populace. With that in mind, and probably for reasons of expedience, the classics also made Hermes patron of such things as orators and wit, weights and measures, literature and sport and invention, as well as business in general. Think Austin Gatt but sexy when naked.
It would seem that the Olympic deities would share portfolios much like a latter-day Gonzi Cabinet − surely it was less of an attempt at saving the citizens millions of obols and more of a ploy by the priests and sibyls to garner a larger part of the worshipping business. Plus ça change. But back to Hermes, that god of communication and boundaries (and the travellers crossing them). Were we to revive the pagan practice of worshiping patron gods for every nuance in our lives, a rejuvenated Hermes would find that he has a much more challenging job cut out for him.
Proximity
The relationship between geographical distance and information has, over the past few years, been sufficiently twisted as to defy the previously simple laws of physics. Take your average battle in, say, 490 BC. Marathon − the place not the race − and the Persians have just been soundly beaten (or if you believe Herodotus and not Fantozzi then the Persians are about to be engaged) so someone needs to carry some information to someone else (again either “We Won” or “Help”). Enter Pheidippides who volunteers for the run. He goes on foot. It takes him some time and he runs naked.
Take your modern day pitched battle. Say an FA Cup match between deadly rivals Man U and Liverpool. We watch it live in HD in our sitting room. Meanwhile, a pretty miffed multimillionaire player (fully clothed) tweets at the end of the match about how referee Webb might as well have worn a Man U outfit. Thousands read Babel’s (oh so apt) missive and the player is duly fined the next day for having stepped beyond the line of the “player – referee” respectful relationship. All in a matter of minutes.
It’s weird and difficult for our generation to get accustomed to. We who grew up with geography lessons about wheat in Saskatchewan, coffee in Brazil and tea in Ceylon can barely keep up with the information overload at the tips of our fingers. The twisted physics (and geography) is such that the story of floods in Brisbane creates more affinity (what I choose to call a feeling of involvement) than that of the tumult in Tunisia. Sure, the press are to blame (or to shoulder some form of responsibility) − for if they filter the news accordingly then those of us who still depend on local mouthpieces (and by local I mean national) will never hear of General Lebled’s plight in the prisons of Sfax.
Relevance
So are we more deeply moved by the story of Christina Taylor Green, born on 11/9/01 and died in Arizona than by the deaths of civilians in the Tunisian riots? Why does the English speaking press give the Brisbane floods more coverage than those in Rio? Here’s a fact: 537 people are reported dead in Rio de Janeiro and 12,000 made homeless. Australia’s floods killed 16 people. In the weird domino of affinity and relevance you might notice that English-speaking media (and this includes new media) covered the Australian floods much more extensively than the Rio disaster.
Should we be surprised that the Maltese press found more to say about families of “Gozo extraction” (is that like a mine or something?) leaving Brisbane than about the hundreds of Cariocas losing their lives? What does surprise me is the lack of information about the Maltese caught up in the crossfire at Tunisia. Malta made it to the international news thanks to speculation that the defecting President Ben Ali might choose our shores (he preferred Dubai in the end), otherwise our proximity to the land of Carthage counted for nowt insofar as we were concerned. What to make of that?
Content
There are benefits to this whole business of the new era of information. Gradually, society will develop new filters in which relevance is determined in different ways. It might be anybody’s guess whether the manipulators of information get their hands on those filters first. In any case the openness of the Internet that had hitherto been spreading can only be a boon. I say hitherto because challenges to this form of freedom of expression are evident in all quarters. Whether you like or hate Assange, the latest attacks on his site and supporters are signs of a new pitched battle between the former forces of media control (in the name of the general good) and the new media’s seemingly uncontainable spread.
We are faced with a challenge of working hard on our own personal filters. Armed with i-gadgets bringing us first hand tweets, links and news, we can choose to be passive or active. Hermes’ New Clothes are shiny and can be deceptive. Politicians are still learning to communicate beyond their normal reach (and to deal with the unexpected consequences). Sarah Palin’s double-whammy, thanks to her ill-advised crosshair gaffe, should be a lesson to anybody attempting to abuse the power of communication by stirring up hatred instead of informed dissent.
We can sit back and compare the truths behind Tunisian unrest and protest and Joseph Muscat’s Friday parade in Valletta. On the one hand we had a people against an oppressive regime that went beyond arrogance and lack of respect for rights. On the other hand we are witnessing the fabrication of an opportunistic Opposition that is playing with the toy of public displeasure at current economic downsides without stopping to concretely propose a new way ahead.
Fashions
What will we fashion out of the information available? Muscat mentioned investing in competitiveness. Behind the empty campaigning lies an awful truth: competitiveness is the key to Malta’s future. However, competitiveness can only be sown in a field of merit, accountability and open information. It is not Joseph’s half-baked litany of buzzwords that is needed to give some hope to this country. It is a new generation of non-PLPN politicians who can see beyond the old style propaganda and crowd stirring rhetoric.
