Mediawatch

Back in Time

It’s been a quiet week – away from the blog. Who am I kidding? A turtle flapped its way up Gnejna bay to lay its little eggs of hope only to be given the Kardashian treatment. Be a celebrity turtle for a day. As if that was not enough the J’accuse Prophesies all fell into place in one damned week. Columnists were made to regret their decision to back a lying politician to the hilt for the sake of winning an election. Remember the “objects of hate”? That was February and March 2008. J’accuse was asking the obvious questions: Can politics by default be successful? Is there anything shallower than the politics of taste? Does backing every Johnny Come Lately for the sake of winning a few votes pay in the long run?

Well it did not. Eerily we went back to those posting days and we noticed that we touched on much more issues that would come back to haunt certain people in 2012. It’s not so uncanny when you think of it but posts such as “PfP – What’s the pFuss?” turned out to be, how shall I say… relevant. Or take the one entitled “Theatrics of the Hard of Hearing” – also a topical issue. Only a few days previously we had highlighted the birth of a new star in “In-House Bickering“. Before that we had analysed Gonzi’s first cabinet choices in “A Cabinet for the People“… that included the following interesting excerpt:

Not something JPO can hope for seeing that his constant denial of knowledge of anything to do with Mistra seems to have exploded in his face. Small aside here. JPO’s treatment by the party had its setbacks too. He was an expendable puppet in the war with Sant. In the party’s list of priorities, proving that Sant would chicken out from confrontation was more important than harnessing a potentially damaging candidate. Projecting him into the limelight to outwit Sant meant that JPO could not limit the damage and his fruitless denial only ended up in Gonzi’s ruling out a Cabinet position for the man who garnered a voting bananza simply on the “sympathy” basis. In the process PN also showed a nasty side in its use of the media and journalists to achieve its aim. Nul points and more.

Then, as now, misinformation regarding the pros and cons of a coalition was high on the agenda for some people. Of course it did not help that they confused the actions of individuals projected to the dizzying heights of one-seat majorities with those of potential political parties that are accountable to a set of commitments. In The Real King Makers we highlighted the perils of the PN’s one -seat majority.

And yes, there was Daphne. Daphne who started the campaign planted before her PC posting comment after comment on J’accuse challenging the “objects of hate” to fall in line with the simple choice of electing PN by default … because Labour is not good for the country (sound familiar?). The tactic is well documented in the post “Seven Day Bloggists” – how serious conversation degenerated into M.A.D by blog. DCG decamped to her own blog created midway through the campaign – probably when she realised that having a blog meant controlling the content (only nice things happen on your blog). That same blog, the Runs, was the one that would back the tearful Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando to the hilt. Elect anyone but Alfred Sant. So much for rational voting….

There’s more to read in those pre-electoral months on J’accuse. We’ve been reading through to see how much of today’s mess was predictable back then. Turns out that the answer is “Quite a bit”. This blog is kicking back into life after a deserved pause (because I say so).

Malta Post-Franco (Reprise)

Discussing the Franco Debono situation over lunch yesterday, we joked that his statement of “I will not vote with Labour” (as reported by MaltaToday) meant just that. Admittedly our considerations were more in jest than anything else but we considered the possibility that Franco was using his very literal form of reasoning in the sense that “not voting with Labour” does not necessarily mean voting otherwise.

I must admit that given the information earlier that morning I too was surprised by the outcome of the final vote. Surprised to a certain extent though. While I had not seen Franco’s vote coming I was fully aware of the consequences of this vote in the sense that there would be no great collapsing of government, no tumbling down of the temples of power and that the only “victim” of this latest fit would be Carm Mifsud Bonnici.

Incidentally we had also joked that since the motion of confidence had concerned a portfolio that was no longer in CMB’s remit then technically there was nothing to resign from once the vote passed. I know, it’s no laughing matter but the way things were going laughter did seem to be the best medicine. The whole body politic has been in the thrall of Franco Debono’s voting antics for quite some time now. As we pointed out in an earlier series of posts (Malta Post Franco I-IV), Franco is doomed to be a temporal blip in political history.

Sure a record might be broken here and there – such as the forcing of a resignation of a minister (within living memory) but the long-term impact of Franco on the Maltese political landscape was always intrinsically linked with the one-seat majority that the nationalist party enjoys (ah, the cruelty of language) in parliament. The content of Franco’s agenda (or whatever screen he has put up to disguise any personal ambitions and compensation for suffering) is all watered down when seen from a long-term perspective.

In two matters Franco has been unintentionally and unwittingly useful. Firstly his protracted theatricals have served to exposed one major weakness of our representative democracy. The obsession with guaranteeing a bi-partisan approach and discarding all other models (such as one that encourages proportional representation) has meant for some time now that the JPO’s and Debonos of this world expose the stark reality of “election or bust” oriented parties without a backbone. This is a weakness that no “premio maggioranza” would solve , rather, it would only serve to entrench the two parties further in their twisted machinations.

The second useful matter concerns the Labour party. Franco’s bluff and no bluff has actually uncovered the Labour party’s brash “power or nothing” approach that discards any conventional value-driven approach while grafting the ugliest versions of the nationalist party to what it believes to be its own benefit. Valueless politics giving way to full blown marketing was already bad enough. Now we have Labour with it’s catastrophic approach. Muscat’s Labour has shot itself in the foot so many times it probably lacks any limbs.

There is a third, important conclusion that one should add. It is the ugly reflection about the “general public”. A large swathe of it – or the particularly active part of it – have proven to be ridiculously hopeful of the promises that Franco seems to have bandied about. His pet subjects were manna to the ears of the disgruntled – particularly conspiracy theories peppered with mantras about arrogance, cliques and friends of friends. His tales of hurt and suffering – culminating in the infamously comic “broken chair in Court” episode could only strike home if the audience were (how can I put it) less informed.

To conclude, the merry go round that risks being extended once Franco misses out on the latest redistribution of power has exposed huge fault lines in our appreciation of how a basic democracy should function. Separation of powers,  judicial authority, parliamentary privileges, public security and rights were all melded together in one big bouillabaisse of political convenience.

Franco’s minutes in the political playing field are now counted. We should have moved on from gazing at Franco months ago, yet we (and the press have much to blame for this) are still at the mercy of his idea of a guessing game. The real politics that will affect out lives for the coming five to ten years lie far away from Franco’s hand. Sadly, nobody seems to be bothered to find out what what those politics and policies really are or will be.

…

from Malta Post-Franco (II)

To get at Austin Gatt, Joe Saliba, Carm Mifsud Bonnici, Richard Cachia Caruana and others Franco Debono decided that the best option was to threaten to topple government. He had had enough waiting in the sidelines for his opinions and ideas to be heard and for a place in the decision making clique that counts. So he refused to play.

Swedes for Europe

Reading the Times of Malta nowadays is as much a guessing game as it is informative. More often than not it is more a case of the former than the latter. Take this article that was uploaded at a quarter to eight in the evening on Sunday:

Alleanza Liberali to field Swedish candidate for 2014 EP elections

Alleanza Liberali this evening announced that it will be fielding Swedish Peter Lowe as one of its candidates for the 2014 European Parliament elections. On twitter, Mr Lowe describes himself as an urban European fighting for human rights and a better, stronger and larger EU.

The article was accompanied by a photo of a beaming man who presumably is the Swede (not the Swedish) Peter Lowe. Whoever filed this article must have been on a trip and so must any person who proof read or approved it for immediate uploading. Why? Do we need to explain?

First of all there is a glaring lack of facts. What is the Alleanza Liberali? Who spoke for it? Where? Did the heavens above the Times part and did a voice suddenly “announce” that Alleanza were fielding a candidate? It is not like Alleanza Liberali are in the news everyday – I for one thought that whatever Liberal formation existed in Malta had long disbanded. Was it a press conference? Was it a press release issued on Sunday afternoon – as an afterthought following a Sunday lunch that was heavy on the grappa?

Then there is “Swedish Peter Lowe”. It’s either Swedish national or Swede Peter Lowe (with the unfortunate consequences of associations to cousins of turnips). The second (and final) sentence of this enigmatic appendage on the timesonline pages is actually part of Peter Lowe’s twitter blurb about himself. Lazy journalism? You bet.

GIGO proceeds: What the root vegetable is an “urban European” who “fights for human rights”? Why did the Times print this bullshit?

Well ok, the Alleanza Liberali exists and it is a band of nutjobs. So far so good. Only a band of nutjobs would announce their candidate for an election two years in advance (woosh – see that? there goes the element of surprise). As for the Times lazily copying a press release into their paper… well trashofmalta anyone?

A quick internet search led me to ProKredit a property financing firm in Germany. Peter Lowe is the CEO of this firm that, among other things, translates the German “Menschen” to “Human Beings” in the English version of their website.

A Letter to Ramona (re: twerps)

Dear Ramona,

I read with interest your latest contribution to the Times’ “blogging” columns. The title, I guess, said it all (A campus of self-entitled twerps) although you did specify from the very start that generalisations can be odious.

To be quite honest I too have begun to wonder recently whether the quality of of our beloved Alma Mater’s end product is deteriorating at a faster rate than the Desserta chocolates of yesteryear. My observation is that students seem to start university with – yes, you said it – that sense of self-entitlement that ultimately means that “since I made it to day one then I am entitled to the final degree – whatever garbage I produce in the interim”.

I am fully aware that my observation too is a generalisation. I am quite sure that an independent observer who would have peeked at our behaviour during the law course years  of the vintage class of ’99 when we shared the benches at the hallowed halls of Tal-Qroqq might have found a thing or two to say about our levels of distraction. Anecdotes and reminiscences apart the point is that I believe that notwithstanding the (perceived or real) fluctuating standards of readers at university we might be dealing – in all probability  – with a constant that has persevered through the ages ever since the first universities were set up from Bologna to Cambridge i.e. the boring lecturer.

Let us not, after all, be distracted by the latest form of distractions available (be they facebook equipped netbooks or twitter enabled smartphones) and concentrate for a moment on the actual issue at hand. A lecturer has been told, in not too indirect a manner, that his delivery during lectures is as boring as a buzzing fly. Less interesting actually. It’s not always easy to point fingers at the persons who will be armed with that marking pen at the end of the semester. I still have fond memories of my “friends” patting me on the back after my not too kind graduation speech criticising the mess at the faculty of Law back in 1996 (B.A.). “Good luck with finishing the course” said many a sarcastic bastard.

Newton (Sir Isaac of gravity and refraction) is said to have penned a list of forty problems  that he intended to tackle in science during a particularly boring lecture. Amicus Plato amicus Aristotle magis amica veritas – he prefaced: truth is a better friend. So it has been through the ages where many a supposed deliverer of truth managed only to deliver sleep-inducing drones. Need I cite our own experiences? Best not.

Yes Ramona. While I would probably stand by you (and many another) in a call for more exacting standards for today’s studying masses  I would also be prepared to audi alteram partem and see whether the alleged perpetrator of mass boredom by power point was guilty of anything.

And that is where I’ve got a problem. For the alleged Mr Boredom of the hundred or more slides is none other than part-time internet troll Antoine Vella. The very man who never missed an occasion to remind J’accuse and its readers how boring the content of this site was according to his most venerable opinion (when he was not seconding other “interesting” personalities in calling me such names as wanker or whatever playground term was popular at the time).

Yes Ramona, I am biased because the man who was unable to keep a lecture theatre ever so slightly interested in whatever he was on about is a ubiquitous troll of the internet kind. His activity online might also explain why he will probably find many a defender in some circles of the net where he is considered less boring and slightly more droll.

I’d suggest a litmus test before judging whether students or lecturer was at tort in this case. Before descending into vulgar generalisation or risking ad hominem arguments we should allow Vella a chance to counter this accusation. This is why J’accuse is willing to allow Vella to make use of the modern technologies that he targeted in his letter and to provide us with the full power point presentation that we would gladly carry on our site as Exhibit Number 1 – while willingly risking the possibility of boring our esteemed readers to death (again, he would say).

We’ll let the audience be the judges of that no? They say the proof of the pudding is in the eating… it’s either that or eat humble pie.

What do you say Antoine?

Trashofmalta

Looks like it’s getting worse. The comments on the Times that is. When Eastwood famously said (or famously did not say) “Opinions are like balls, everybody has them” he had summarised a universal truth (although he would have probably been admonished in today’s world for not choosing a more gender neutral metaphor). In Maltese we say “mitt bniedem mitt fehma” (a hundred persons, a hundred opinions). What many do not seem to be getting is the fact that the simple matter of having an opinion does not automatically make it right. Just because it sounds good, doesn’t make it right (pace Skunk Anansie).

Sure, it’s hard to draw a line for online editors eager not to scare away the commenting masses and it probably all boils down to education. Or rather the lack of it. You risk becoming a wankellectual snob saying this but hell, that’s an opinion that I am prepared to defend.

The problems of this country are also down to the fact that uninformed and badly expressed opinions are not only multiple but encouraged to prosper – and in some cases rewarded.

So here. For your perusal is one of the first “shithitsthefan” posters for facebook.

Allons enfants de l’austerity

Some required reading from today’s Figaro. Unfortunately the editorial is still not available online for non-paying members so I have typed out the main quote. We will see more of this in tonight’s debate between Francois Hollande and Sarkozy  but what is more interesting is how the main thrust of the problems that will be debated is a universal set of issues that apply Europe-wide.

Last time round the nationalist party cloned Sarkozy’s slogan “Ensemble, tout est possible” (Flimkien kollox possibli). This time we might see some more inevitable parallels. France’s “progressive” left built around anti-Sarkozyism is running a campaign built on “Hope”.

Hollande has promised employment and work but while his appealing rhetoric might sound great for the anti-austerity crowd it has already attracted the worried stares of the financial markets. Sarkozy is basing his challenge on facing the stark reality of failed models and failed economies.

May day’ speeches in Malta might be a taste of similar things to come closer to home. Joseph Muscat’s hope and rhetoric still fails the basic test of “Show me the money”. Combine that with his pre-hedging regarding “Hofra Mark 2012” (or the gap in finances he will obviously be surprised to discover once he is elected PM) and you seem to be getting a perfect clone of François Hollande.

There is much more to be read into this and I will do so as soon as I find the time. Here is part of Le Figaro’s editorial. For an amusing reading try replacing NS with Lawrence Gonzi and FH with Joseph Muscat.

“(NS) a défendu un nouveau modèle français, fondé sur un constat d’évidence : la mondialisation bouscule tout, tout est donc à repenser si on ne veut pas etre englouti. Le viex modéle social, perpétuellement financé à crédit, ne tient plus la route. Si l’on ne fait rien, il s’écroulera bientot. (…) (FH) connait bien le problème de fond de sa campagne. Il promet des choses qu’il ne pourra tenir, puisque tous les créanciers de la France – la fameuse “finance” – l’observeront seconde par seconde.”

(watch the video top-right from 14 minutes)