Library

The Media and Egypt

ONE NEWS REPORTER Anthony David Gatt wrote this as a facebook note. J’accuse is posting it as a zolabyte with the author’s kind permission. It is his take on how the media – local and foreign – has dealt with the Egyptian uprising. As Anthony says, this note is a look at what is happening from the journalist’s point of view as well as at the effects of media. The floor is open for discussion.

L-Egittu: rajnieh u wassalnieh

L-Egittu kien fuq fomm kullhadd fl-ahhar jiem. Habba li l-pajjiz huwa tant vicin taghna, minhabba ir-rappurtagg kontinwu fuq l-istazzjoniet tal-ahabrijiet u permezz ta-Twitter u Facebook, hassejna lilna nfusna eqreb tal-izviluppi. F’din in-nota tajt harsa lejn dak li qed jigri mill-lenti gurnalistika u l-effetti tal-midja.

Kardashians flok Tahrir

Wahda fost l-aktar mossi medjatici importanti f’dawn id-dimostrazzjonijiet kienet id-decizjoni tal-Al Jazeera English li jwasslu xandira diretta bla waqfien mill-Egittu. Dan filwaqt li l-istazzjonijiet l-ohra kollha, jew kellhom problemi biex jxandru jew ma tawx l-importanza li din l-istorja sthoqqitila mill-ewwel. Tant li fuq CNN fl-ewwel jiem tal-gimgha, meta kollox deher li beda jeskala, ghal xi hinijiet dehru l-Kardashians jitkellmu fuq fettuqiet flok iz-zghazagh Egizzjani jiggieldu ghal-drittijiethom. AJE tassew wasslu rappurtagg tajjeb u reali mit-toroq tal-Kajr, Lixandra u bliet ohra. Dehret id-differenza mill-midja l-ohra, kellhom iktar access ghal sorsi politici gharab ghaliex l-istazzjon ewlieni ta’ din n-network beda bl-Gharbi u huwa iccentrallizat mal-hajja Gharbija.

AJE

Dehret differenza wkoll bejn l-mod kif l-midja amerikana titratta l-korrispondenti ewlenin bhal Anderson Cooper u Hala Gorani tas-CNN. Il-kjass li qam meta gew attakkati, mhux ghax gew attakati gurnalisti u l-ghajb ta’ azzjoni bhal din, izda ghax gew attakati ismijiet kbar. Fuq huffingtonpost rajna artikli shah “Anderson Cooper attacked”, “Anderson Cooper admits he is afraid”, anke jien semmejt l-fatt li gie aggredit fir-rappurtagg tieghi. Izda minn jaf x’raw ma wicchom kemm l-gurnalist bla isem fl-ahhar jiem? Ghal AJE ma kienx importanti l-glorifikazzjoni tal-korrispondent daqs is-sahha tal-kontenut. In-newsanchor gieli inghaqdet ma korrispondent minn nofs pjazza Tahrir minghajr ma semmiet ismu. Forsi bhala mizura ta’ sigurta’, imma hi x’inhi kienet sistema li hadmet u li tat lill din in-network status qawwi tul ir-rappurtagg shih.

Internet bahh

Twitter rega ghamilha. Nies tweetjaw minn djarhom biex nbdew l-protesti, tweetjaw minn pjazza Tahrir, u mit-toroq tal-Kajr sakemm inqata l-internet. Hekk cum bum. Waqaf kollox. Jum minnhom qed niccettja ma kollega tieghi u qaltli ezatt x’ghaddiet minnu fil-jiem tal-protesti u l-ghada bahh. Fuq tweetpic rajt ritratt ta’ kif il-graph tat-traffiku tal-internet waqghet minn mija fil-mija ghal-tnax fil-mija. Izda Facebbok u Twitter fil-bqija tad-dinja baqghu ghaddejjin u whud mic-cellulari fl-Egittu kienu ghadhom joperaw wkoll. Allura zghazugh minn Kalifornja espert fil-qasam tal-kommunikazzjoni u li ghandu shabu fl-Egittu u kemm il-darba mar hemm, haseb sew x’jista jghamel u ghamilha! Talab lill kull min ried jikkomunika mill-Egittu biex jcempel u jghaddi messagg fuq sistema jew jibghat sms. Hu imbghad jaqlibhom fi tweets jew jahllihom bhala vuci. Il-bniedem rega dawwar il-bieb imsabbat f’wiccu tat-teknologija… f’id ta’ ghajnuna b’sahhitha u soda.

Ghax ma nintervistax lill Mubarak?

Impressjonajt ruhi wkoll bil-mument ta’ ispirazzjoni ta’ Christiane Amanpour li telqet mis-CNN u issa qieghda l-ABC. Kienet qed thares lejn l-cameraperson taghha bilqieghda qabel ma jintervistaw il-Vici President l-gdid, u hasbet bejna u bejn ruhha… ghalfejn ma nintervistawx lill Mubarak. L-iktar haga ovja u semplici, u fl-istess hin l-haga li qass tghaddilek minn mohhok f’miljuni ta’ snin f’dik l-atmosfera. Mubarak kien hemm biss biex jghajruh u biex jghati diskorsi mistennija b’herqa u jerga jghib. Mhux biex jkun normali u jitkellem ma persuna ohra, ma gurnalista! Ghodda ta’ propaganada jew le, ghalija l-intervista ghinitu, ghallinqas f’ghajnejja. Kif spjegajt lill Stephen Calleya, Kap tal-MEDAC, jien nhares lejh minn zewg perspettivi… minn naha bhala tirann kattiv kif pengewuli u lilna l-Egizzjan,i u minn naha l-ohra bhala statista li ghalkemm imperfett ghad ghandu f’qalbu lill dawk li forsi xi darba kienu uliedu u ma jridx jitfa pajjiz fl-abissi. Mghomi bil-biza tal-izlamizmu jrid jibqa fil-kariga u jiehu hsieb, mqar ghalissa.

Ovvju

Dan apparti li jkun superfluwu li nsemmu kemm gurnalisti tal-midja tradizzjonali gabu informazzjoni u vidjos minn fuq twitter u youtube bis-sahha tac-citizen journalists fit-triq. Dan l-fenomenu issa nafuh sew, kull ma nistghu nghidu hu li gie rikonfermat u issa zgur li m’hemm ebda dubju tas-sahhat ta’ din it-tip ta’ midja gdida.

Gurnalizmu bil-‘G’ kbira

Kellna wkoll l-interess rari tal-gurnalisti Maltin. Karl Stagno Navvarra ha d-decizjoni li insemmghu lehinnha ghal-kif shabna fl-Egittu qed jissawtu, jigu arrestati u mwaqqfa minn xoghlhom. Karl ghamel tajjeb. Izda l-‘protesta’ quddiem l-ambaxxata Egizzjana saret f’hin hazin u mhux hafna minnha setghu jattendu. Whud li setghu m’attendewx, ghaliex forsi jahsbu li dan kollu teatrin ghalxejn. Forsi mhux kullhadd kellu l-kilba li jmur l-Egittu, forsi ghal hafna l-gurnalizmu ghandu l-‘g’ zghira.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Snapshot: Church & State

I just had to post this again. It’s a photo taken from the (currently comatose) blog “il-manoċċa” of a newspaper poster from “il-Gens” which has since switched to being an e-paper. In these times of lay vs church battles and humanists and saints this photo tends to summarise it all neatly.

Next Christ the King

For the non-Maltese readers the poster reads as follows:

THIS MORNING UNIONS IN ANOTHER MEETING WITH THE PRIME MINISTER

next heading: TOMORROW CHRIST THE KING

priceless.

Balcony, Oh Balcony

Wikipedia’s post on balconies interestingly mentions specifically the “Maltese Balcony” as an example. Even more interesting was the origins of the word “balcony” itself from the Persian “بالكانه bālkāneh” which got me wondering whether Xerxes and Ataxerxes were into the habit of using balconies on solemn occasions.

Historically the balcony has had an important role through the ages. One of the most famous balconies of all time was the scene in Verona where the son and daughter of rival houses played out the age-old ceremony of courting. Balconies though are more associated with power and glory. Famous balconies such as that at Buckingham Palace from which the Royal Family have saluted the brave public in good and bad times or the Vatican balcony of “habemus papam” fame promptly come to mind.

Michael Jackson, God bless his soul, dared eclipse the Brandenburg Gate‘s symbolic importance by dangling his very own son out of the balcony of a Berlin Hotel that has henceforth become a tourist attraction.

This week I read in Italy’s La Stampa that Mussolini‘s famous balcony from which he proclaimed war on the Allies in WWII has been re-opened for the first time since 1943. The balcony, the article read, is no longer taboo. Closer to home one of the myriad cosmetic changes ordered by Joseph Muscat during his reign was the ordering of a celebratory balcony for the electoral win that was yet to come.

Romeo and Juliet, Popes, Mussolini, the Royal Family, Michael Jackson… the thing with balconies is that it is not the balconies themselves that make the person but rather vice-versa. Which probably means that judging by his current performance, Joseph Muscat’s balcony is doomed to being just another architectural eyesore in Mile End.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Humpty Dumpty Politics

What makes or breaks a modern political party? Can we still talk of the terms “christian-democrat” and “socialist” (or the masacara “progressive”) when it comes to the nitty-gritty of politics in Malta? Is it just Malta that has entered a Bermuda Triangle of party values?

The nationalist party might hold the “Fehmiet Bazici” (Basic Beliefs) document to its heart but how is it to reconcile that with the calculated vote grabbing net that is elaborated every five years? Joseph Muscat may have declared a new era of progressive liberals but his party is having a hard time trying to appease the weird animal that is the “conservative proletariat”.

The “socialists” were never socialist to begin with. Even at the worst of the church-Labour battles their worry over the fact of being buried in non-consecrated ground or their sacristy marriages betrayed their Peppone like interior. Beneath the wannabe socialist revolutionaries were Catholics who were really stung by the fundamentalist church moves. Had they really been convinced of their socialist, lay battles they wouldn’t have given two hoots about being interdicted from a church that was supposedly not theirs.

The nationalist party lost its moral compass right after 1987. It was on a life-saving machine all through the EU campaign having placed its bets on the right horse but once the fog of the EU War subsided (thank you very much Waste-Our-Bloody-Time-Sant) it fell apart like Humpty Dumpty – unable to string together a coherent plan of action and a victim of the Young Battlers of the EU Campaign clamouring for a piece of the victorious pie of government. The worldwide economic crisis did the rest of the trick.

So when an issue like divorce hits the parties when they least expect it, they are unable to react as political parties. Or at least it seems so. James Debono has done a(nother) wonderful job of assessing the different scenarios with regards to divorce and the two main parties: “Divorce: When principles and convenience collide“. Even if we were to set aside the issue itself (divorce) and focus on the party reactions to what is basically a “principle” or “value” changer in society the results are rather bleak.

The stand taken by Austin Gatt might be old hat but it is after all what you’d expect from a party MP. Austin’s stand is about the PN stand not about what Malta thinks. He is spot on when he says that if he (Austin) disagrees with divorce legislation then he cannot fit in within a party that actively promotes divorce legislation. J’accuse would go one further. Resign from the PN in case it decides to back divorce legislation but do not resign from parliament.

Paul Borg Olivier’s recent interview on Dissett points to a possible development for the PN. It is the possibility of acknowledging that the party itself is in favour/against divorce but leaving its members free to vote. The question J’accuse would like to ask is: Does this count as a party position on values? Is the acknowledgement that a discussion such as divorce is one that has both pro- and con- partisans within the same party sufficient to say that party values are safe?

Even Labour, with what is supposed to be a less confessional set of values (actually it claims to be progressive) has difficulties taking a stand on divorce. Granted that there is no denying that Joseph Muscat’s Labour has a proven track record of opportunistic bandwagon politics this particular nut will be a tough one to crack. Muscat has his own Gatt on his side of parliament (Adrian Vassallo) and surely other conservative proletarians will follow suit.

Which leaves us with Alternattiva Demokratika. What started off as a party with a strong green agenda at the time of its affiliation with the Verdi/Greens can now boast of a wealth of political positions in the social sphere – from property rights to gender issues to divorce. The party position is unequivocal and clear: they want divorce legislation.

The D’Hondt relative majority has done much to whittle away the party backbone for the party in government. It lives each day nervously wondering which backbencher (or government member) might step out of line and threaten the fragile structure that is at wits end. It has gone from “Par Idejn Sodi” (a pair of strong hands) to “Kuljum bir-Roghda” (everyday shaking). The PL is at sea trying to desperately loop in any possible voter and trying not to tread on anyone’s toes in case their vote is needed come d-day. Which leaves us with a gaggle of spineless politicians unable to take a clear stand on matters that count. Or does it?

J’accuse believes that for the first time Alternattiva Demokratika has a chance to assert itself as something more than a party aspiring for the third place. The l vacuum opened up by the PLPN (ironically as a direct result of their tweaking of the D’Hondt Relative Majority) opens up the same possibilities as those seen by the UK Liberal Democrats before the last elections. AD should no longer aspire to be a third party. On paper, it has every right and chance to aspire to be a major role player in the next elections and technically it should be the most spineless of the PLPN duo that suffers.

That of course does not take into account the partisan vote base. Which will stick to its PLPN guns come hell or highwater… or come divorce.

Informer

Readings for an Informed Divorce Debate.

This is the first in a series of posts I intend to prepare for this blog with regard to the divorce debate. It’s all very well for us all to pontificate and prod each other with our preconceptions but where are we coming from and more importantly what are we talking about? The other day I read a status update on facebook by someone who insisted that we should keep partisan politics out of the divorce debate. It’s already bad as it is but confusing party rhetoric with informed debate could be dangerous. This set of posts goes beyond parties and entrenched positions. In this series, J’accuse will attempt to collate information – sociological and analytical – about what surrounds a question such as divorce.

This first article, translated from French (apologies for the not so exact translation) deals with the evolution of the post-modern family from a French perspective. It would be interesting to hear how this kind analysis fits in with the Maltese reality. Is our social set-up so different from that of the French so as to say that the anaylsis is inapplicable in our island? Or have we not yet taken the time to look in this particular mirror and see what it is we are up to when setting up our domestic units? Do the same processes apply to Malta and Maltese marriages? Is the step of divorce and remarriage a necessary and missing step or not? Discuss. Civilly and responsibly if you please.

Extract from “Sociologie de la famille contemporaine”
François de Singly (Paris, 1993, Nathan, pp. 87-89 and 110-113)

The Post-Modern Family

The history of the contemporary family can be divided into two periods. Fom the 19th century to the 60s one can observe a coincidence between the institution of marriage and the focus on interpersonal relationships. Three elements form the basis of a little contested reference model: love before marriage, the strict division of labour between man and woman, and the care for the infant – it’s health and education. For half a century (1918-1968), the fact that the male would work outside to earn the family money and that the woman would stay at home to best take care of the infants was evident in most places.

Starting from the 60s, the housewife model is criticised, particularly by the female social movements – by feminism. The stability of marriages decreases and divorce by mutual consent becomes possible by the law of the 11th July 1975. Cohabitation outside marriage begins to develop. Neither the marriage institution nor the sexual roles disappear – the majority of couples in 1990 are married and live in accordance to rules of specialisation with regard to domestic tasks – they have however lost a huge part of their legitimacy. Thus, three quarters of the persons questioned on the future of two persons engaged in a stable love relationship believe that these persons should live together without getting married if they do not want any children – marriage would become a necessary option if the couple would want a child. The dissociation between conjugal life and marriage has become strong.

The logic of affection, for a long time extraneous to the family and marriage (the myth of love having been constructed against the concept of marriage of interest) has managed to pervade the marriage institution. During the first period of the contemporary family one could have believed that the fusion between these two elements would have been durable. Now the force of the requirements of affection has progressively undermined the institution. In his essay ‘L’amour et l’Occident’ (Love and the West), Denis de Rougemont had the intuition in 1939 that the love worm resided in the marriage fruit:

“If one therefore got married due to a romance, once this romance evaporates is it normal that at the first sign of conflict of characters or tastes one asks: Why am I married? It not any less natural that, obsessed by the universal propaganda for romance, one admits at the first chance of having fallen in love with someone else. It is perfectly logical that one decides just as quickly to divorce to find a new “love”, which means a new marriage, a new promise of happiness; the three words are synonymous.”

The passage from the modern family to the “post-modern” family is the result of an emphasis on a characteristic of the first period: the focus on relations. What changes in face is that relations have less value themselves than the satisfaction that they are expected to procure to each of the members of the family. Today the “happy family” is less attractive. What is important is being happy oneself. Contrary to certain utopias in 1968 or to certain feminist texts that wanted to destroy the bourgeois family and the patriarchal family, the family has not vanished in the sense that individuals believe that it constitutes one of the ideal means to be happy. The “me” (or “I”) trumps the “us” but the former does not require, the elimination of the conjugal group or of the familial group. (…)

Since the end of the 60s, individuals tend to have a conditional engagement with the family group they have created. Approximately a third of couples married in the 80s have divorced or will divorce. They do this earlier: the maximum frequency lies at four years of marriage (a length of time to which we must add the period of cohabitation with the partner). Conjugal instability during the second period of the modern family has increased, without however forcing a general turnover – as certain commentaries would like us to believe. The majority of married couples remain stable.

The devaluation of “perenniality” (pérennité)

The most important change is the relative devaluation of the idea of marriage that believes that one of the objectives of marriage is stability. For example, cohabitants do not think that marriage “protects affection ties”, “proves to the other that one really loves him/her”. The length of the couple’s relationship has no value unless the partner continues to provide the expected satisfaction. As we have seen with unmarried and graduate women, the belief in autonomy (independence) does not suppress the need to establish conjugal ties – the couple remains the main reference – it only renders unacceptable a union that could be perceived as not serving the construction of a personal identity, or one that does not serve the unification of internal contradictions. Conjugal intimacy must not be lived as a tyranny; it must, on the other hand, be the ideal place, at least in the daily private life which allows one to believe that one’s self is stripped of its social roles and has finally reached a deep zone of authenticity. Such a (reciprocal) request is difficult to fill – the analysis of the division of domestic labour has proven it. If the women would refuse certain arrangements, separations would be much more numerous since they have, for the large part, the almost exclusive responsibility of these jobs. The ideal of individual autonomy within a stable group is not simpler to put in place than the ideals of previous periods. Dissatisfaction leading to divorce could, in this perspective, have two different causes (origins):

– either the belief in the ideal of the post-modern couple is too strong; it prevents the possibility of any compromise (notably, the most common compromise in middle and superior couples is that which tolerates a double professional activity on the condition of not putting into question the hierarchy of male and female investments in the professional sphere);

– or the partner (or oneself) cannot sufficiently play the game by participating in the creation of obligatory compromises, the level of contradictions is to elevated.

In short, the modernist project seems to be strictly tied to a higher level of separation. It does not seem to be a greater disfunctionality than the traditionalist project. It is more of a general attitude – giving more rights to the individual vis-a-vis “us the family” – that which easily allows the perception of a conjugal dissatisfaction on the one hand and the transformation of the latter into divorce on the other. Divorce is contained, in a certain manner in certain unions. The intuition of Denis de Rougemont is confirmed by such differences in the rate of divorce with regards to values proclaimed many years earlier. The logic that conditions the foundation of post-modern families is the search, not of solitude, but of the satisfaction of the psychological needs of each member of the family.

Reference
D. de Rougemont, L’ammour et l’Occident, Paris 1972 (1938)

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta