Categories
Politics

When your surname’s not Bonanno

Here’s the full text of a law report from the Times of Malta. I am not leaving anything out or selecting only parts of it so that you too can read it in its entirety (look no editing).

[box type=”shadow”]
Thursday, October 13, 2011, 14:27
Lawyer wants Arbitration Tribunal decision to be declared null

A lawyer representing a man who was involved in a traffic accident this morning called on a court to declare null a decision on the case taken by the Arbitration Centre.

Dr Jose’ Herrera said he was making his request after the Constitutional Court in September declared that forced arbitration, as was the case here, violated the right to a fair hearing.

Dr Herrera is representing Victor Micallef, who was found to have been 50% responsible for a car accident in 2006 and ordered to pay some €3,000. The decision was taken by the Arbitration Tribunal.[/box]

Can someone explain to me why in this country it is lawyers not plaintiffs who make requests to a court? It’s already bad enough when the report starts off with the anonymous “a lawyer” because technically speaking it’s not “a lawyer” but “the plaintiff” who is requesting the court to annul the Arbitration Tribunal decision. Sure, it’s a lawyer who has gone through the legal motions but it will always be the plaintiff’s request – the plaintiff as represented by a lawyer (taken as read).

Most of you will have read of the Premier League case that was decided by the august institution that I work for. Now, how many of you remember the names of the lawyers for the parties who were involved in the referred case? Name one. Just one. I dare you.

Admit it. You probably don’t even remember the name of the publican who was the “star” of the show. Well, we all know it was a lady and that she owned a pub. Fact is that the headlines in most of the papers the next day were not Lawyer So and So wins case before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Most headlines featured “Pub Lady”.

So back to Malta. Not only do we wrongly highlight the lawyer and not the party. It gets better. “The lawyer” is “outed” (surprise, surprise) as Dr Herrera – a potential justice minister in a future Labour government – and “his” case is actually challenging the constitution of a particular tribunal under our laws because its set up might violate the right to a fair hearing.

Somehow I get the feeling that the hacks at the Times received a convenient summary of the case and threw it straight into their Court section. How they do not feel “manipulated” in a Matt Bonanno sort of way just because the “feed” comes straight from a politician is uncanny. How they participate in this blurring of lines between lawyer-client relationship and political advertising without any qualms is unnerving.

People like Franco Debono would do well to have a word or two with the likes of Dr Herrera when it comes to “advertising” particular cases. This kind of “publication” tends to undermine further the faith we have in all four institutions – government, judiciary, parliament and the fourth estate. It does so much faster than an unaccountable Minister or a biased news programme.

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Mediawatch

The Coach & Horses

Much is being made about Peppi Azzopardi’s side-career as a “coach” to prominent persons in the political sphere. Such persons tend to be, or have been, of a nationalist persuasion although I have it on good record that Peppi has also given non-nationalists the benefits of whatever expertise he has – admittedly within campaigns that were also dear to the nationalist party’s heart.

To begin with, there is nothing surprising that one of the main horses from the “Where’s Everybody” stable should engage in spinoff marketing designed to get people to get their message through to your average citizen. WE’s monopoly of national airwave prime time has put them in a position to be able – even by trial and error – to discover what sells best with Mr. Francis the People (Cikku l-poplu). In the land of the blind the one-eyed man sometimes develops an acute sense of vision that might surprise even himself.

Labour’s noise about Peppi’s supposed impartiality and that of the other equine from the same stable – the one who tends to bray rather than neigh – is rather misplaced. It has been said elsewhere that impartiality is not the be all and end all of discussion program or investigative journalism. It is the feigning of impartiality that is another matter altogether. To actually convince yourself that you are in the business of balanced reporting or discussion when  it is clear to all and sundry how mechanised a pantomime your programmes are is to persist in a constant lie. J’accuse never had any beef with the lack of impartiality but rather with the obstinate denial thereof.

What jars most in the case of Peppi, Lou and others who have previously backed the line of one Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando is their defence of “I believed him then”. But then what? They saw his face and inverted the musical trend?

You see the Peppi defence of “I helped a persecuted individual” does not hold water in the field of marketing – you are employed to sell ANYTHING and do not question the underlying message. Peppi was either turning up at the nationalist party headquarters to coach a politician on how to appear more convincing – whatever the message – or he was there in his full mental capacity and judging the content too: and it was not THAT difficult to see that JPO was floundering fast even under the duress and stress of the time.

Nor does someone like Daphne convince me with the bull about how JPO was very convincing before the election and how now he is suddenly a liar, a hamallu or whatever else the spin machine chooses to throw at this jack of all trades turned politician. The nationalist party was falling over itself trying to get the man out of the muddle he had brought upon himself. We had pointed out the absurdity of the issuing of a press card to a politician at the time and we were told that we were “immature” and that we were picking the wrong man.

The damascene turnaround has nothing to do with policy or values but with convenience. Peppi and Daphne sound very much like a Joseph Muscat who needed four years of European Parliament action before he saw the EU light shining through the yellow stars on a blue background. And the funny thing is that it does not answer the basic question: whether you believed him or whether you were being paid on a retainer Peppi, you were in PN HQ doing PN work for a PN politician.

Saying that it’s because you believed him then is like saying you put the joint to your mouth… but never inhaled.


 

 

 

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Arts

Gallery Pi goes Yerbury

Bertu of Bertoons for J’accuse has sent in a promo blurb for this exhibition that is runnning at Rupert Cefai’s Gallery Pi between the 14th and 24th October. J’accuse dutifully passes on the information to its readers – do go check out Rupert’s little corner of Valletta in Archbishop Street.

“Naked ruins exclusive at Gallery Pi”

Like Madonna, the Yerbury duo constantly reinvent themselves with fresh  approaches to their art – and challenging diversions within the social portraiture genus.

As the 4th generation of this celebrated Scottish photographic dynasty, Trevor spent many years concentrating on fashion and private nude commissions. He returned to social and wedding photography in the mid 90s and immediately created a unique style of photography, which not only earned him the title of “Kodak UK Wedding Photographer of the Year” in 1997 & 1999, but his influential style helped change the course of wedding photography into the relaxed, informal style we have today.

No stranger to the media, Trevor has been interviewed about his individual style of photography on national television by Noel Edmonds for the BBC, Carol Smillie for ITV and Paul Ross for SKY. He is a regular contributor to BBC radio arts programmes.

Trevor was featured on the BBC Arts documentary “The Bigger Picture” where he was filmed making a portrait of Billy Connolly. The resulting image was used as the opening scene for each episode and has since become an iconic image.

Their work in photographing the female nude has been recognised internationally, resulting in overseas exhibitions and seminar tours. In 2003,the Yerburys’ talent was commissioned to supply the entire artwork for the new Glasshouse Hotel in Edinburgh – a brave concept, but one that resulted in the hotel recently being voted Sexiest Hotel in Scotland.

The Yerburys have held several exhibition of their work in galleries around the UK including the Association of Photographers Gallery in London and the Demarco Gallery in Edinburgh. Their work has also been exhibited in America, France and Spain. Their work has been featured in many books and photographic magazines on the Nude Trevor holds a total of 14 Kodak European Gold Awards. His other awards include SWPP UK Glamour Photographer 2006 and UK Fashion Photographer 2006.

Four years ago Trevor Yerbury was voted one of the world’s top ten photographers by a leading Spanish magazine…despite having once declared: “I won’t shoot the wedding if the bride isn’t beautiful”.

Faye joined Trevor full time in 1996 and has earned an enviable reputation for her work. On 3 occasions she has won the title of “Kodak UK Child Photographer of the Year”. She also holds a Kodak Gold Award and SWPP UK Architectural Photographer 2006.

The Yerburys now devote much of their time to their seminar and workshop programme, convinced that education is essential for today’s professional photographer. They are committed to providing a platform and an environment in which all levels of photographers can come together and develop their own individual creative talents.

Trevor and Faye have judged both nationally and internationally. Trevor has just finished judging the annual European Professional Photographer of the Year Awards 2011.

The exhibition will run exclusively at Gallery Pi Archbishop Str., Valletta, from the 14th to the 24th October 2011, The Gallery will be open from Tuesday to Friday from 10am to 2pm and Saturdays from 9:30 to 12:30 or by appointment. For more information please visit www.gallerypi.com

 

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Mediawatch

The Sacking of a Journalist

The fourth estate being what it is, the news of the sacking of a trainee journalist (he was on probation) in a particular set of circumstances warrants careful examination. J’accuse has a long history of criticising the workings of the mainstream press and is not about to hold back now. I am of course referring to the premature termination of Matt Bonanno’s contractual arrangement with the employers at the Times of Malta. Such termination did not require much of an explanation given that Bonanno was on probation i.e. the sacking required no explanation at all.

This does not mean however that we cannot look further into what happened and how it happened. Now that we have the news from the horse’s mouth (Matt Bonanno’s facebook note – reproduced with his permission further down) we can look at what could possibly have motivated the geniuses at the Times to nip this particular career in the bud. First a little set of clarifying facts:

[box]

(1) Bonanno posted the information of the impending Ministerial visit to tal-Qroqq on a facebook wall that belonged to a friend of his: Ms Abela Garett.

(2) Bonanno did NOT pick up the invitation sent to him in reply by Ms Abela Garrett in which he was asked to “bring his notebook along” to tal-Qroqq the next day for the pre-meditated, non-spontaneous display of disaffection at the Minister’s dealings with public transport.

(3) Bonanno did not inform his editors of the possible protest action – and this is assuming he gave any importance to the wall reply by Abela Garett.

(4) The Times sent ANOTHER journalist to cover Austin Gatt’s university visit. The visit and ensuing ministerial heckling was reported on the Times as it was on all other papers.

(5) The PN sleuths trying to discredit the protesting by Abela Garett included in their list of grievances that (a) the protest was premeditated; (b) Bonanno’s message on facebook was part of the pre-meditation.

(6) While more of the “premeditated” “non-spontaneous” bull was being thrown in direction of the theatrical performance, the Times chose to sever ties with one link in the chain of “premeditation” and sacked Matt Bonanno without so much as a by your leave.[/box]

It stinks. It does. And I do not believe for one moment the whole “conspiracy theory” or the Times is a confederacy of nationalists business. What we have here is an organ that likes to kid itself of being impartial and super partes when it comes to reporting the news suddenly developing a panic attack that it might in some way be “implicated” in a supposed “frame up” of Minister Gatt.

J’accuse believes that the Times people gave absolutely no thought whatsoever to what they were doing before the knee jerk reaction of sacking Matt Bonanno. If the Times had not swallowed  so completely all the bull being shot into their direction by Messrs Bondi, Caruana Galizia and Co. about the evil nature of “non-spontaneous protest” they would have, possibly (and hopefully) noticed that Bonanno’s sole “sin” actually forms part of the repertoire of your average hack.

Yes. The Times sacked a journalist for behaving like one. Activists and ground level journalists constantly interact. Lord knows how many faxes about protests I sent in my time as an activist. If I wanted my organisation to be in the news I’d pretty damn well tell the journalist to “bring his notebook along” and pray to God that he follows suit.

Was Bonanno wrong to tell Abela Garett that Minister Gatt would be at Uni the next day? No. It’s public information after all. Nothing wrong in that.

Was Bonanno wrong not to inform his editors about possible protests occurring on the day? Again all evidence points to exculpating Bonanno. If anything, Bonanno would have abused of such information by “scooping” the issue and being on hand for the news item. Instead he probably did not even bother at all.

The uglier scenario is the alternative one. What if HE HAD told the Times editors that he suspected a possible protest against Austin Gatt on campus? What would they have done? Why are they so eager for the news? Their action (the sacking) might lead us to suspect that they would be more interested in forewarning the Minister than in actually reporting the event. After all they did get the report just the same but their reaction (the sacking) makes them seem rather angry about it all. The thing is… they lost control. They could not control the news. They had to follow and report.

Matt Bonanno’s inadvertent – and I insist unplanned – slipping of the bit of info to Abela Garrett led the Times to behave as a normal newspaper – one that reports the news as it unfolds before it without trying to tamper in any way. The moment though that the PN machine set the wheels in motion and started pointing fingers about absurd theories of “premeditation” and “nonspontaneity” the Times panicked.

And Matt was their perfect scapegoat.

 

Matt’s Note on Facebook (reproduced with his permission).

[box] I wasn’t going to write an explanation at first, but seeing as though gossip and rumours are being fired off from all sides, I thought it would be best to have my perspective wedged somewhere in between all the bullshit. Not that I ultimately give a damn what people think; times like these make it easier to realise who is not worth your time. Firstly, let me be the first to admit that what I did (and what I did exactly will be explained next) was spectacularly naive, and mildly unprofessional.

What I did was this: The day before the incident, I posted on Ms Abela Garrett’s wall, “Guess who’s going to be at University tomorrow.” I barely paid attention to her comment in which she told me she was going to give me a good story. So much so that I didn’t even tell my editors about it, and as a result did not attend the event, which by the way was public and not in the least bit top secret. Therefore, the whole thing was not orchestrated in any way. If I really, intentionally wanted to orchestrate something like that, I would have messaged her privately, not joked semi-publicly on her Facebook wall. In the words of John Cleese in a Monty Python sketch, I may be an idiot but I’m no fool.

A couple of other things which need to be cleared up are:

1) I did not write the article. I was busy following George Pullicino around a valley at the time and call him as my witness.

2) It was not me who decided to portray Ms. Abela Garrett as a heroine. I have no ill feeling towards The Times, especially my former colleagues in the newsroom.

Even though I feel my sacking was harsh, I was still on probation and they were well within their rights to give me the boot. The only thing I was disappointed about was not being given the chance to explain myself or apologise, in person. I was of course asked to explain myself via email on Thursday, since I was off that day, but I kept it brief and intended to explain myself fully, in front of the editors, the next day. On Friday, after being left in the newsroom for about 2 hours, I was called to HR and told my probation was terminated with immediate effect. To be honest I didn’t give my side of things, seeing as I wasn’t asked to. I don’t beg.

Neither am I going to be bearing a grudge against the bloggers who blew the incident out of proportion. They do what they do and I should have known better than to give them fuel to fire their own agendas.

And before they claim they don’t have an agenda, if Messrs. Bondi (sorry but I can’t be arsed putting the accent on the i) and Caruana Galizia were the journalists they claim to be, they would have phoned me to get my side of things before stampeding towards their own, warped conclusions. But that’s not how they work, obviously.

I will say one thing however. Caruana Galizia claims not to be on Facebook, but that makes her lifting photos, statuses etc. from the site and putting them on her blog even more morbid and stalker-like. Then again, she probably doesn’t search for them herself (if she does then she really does need to get a life) and has her minions do it for her. To these sad, miserable sycophants I say: do the rest of us a favour and stop robbing the planet of oxygen.

Actually now that I think of it I’d better remove the pictures of me French kissing a horse with a Labour flag draped over it while attending a pasta najt. (Kidding, Daffy) Finally, a big soppy thank you to my friends who have supported me over the past few days.

I’m touched, really. Anyway, I’ll be getting on with my life now.

Over and out. Matthew Bonanno.

Ps. I wish Maltatoday had chosen a better photo of me. [/box]

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Articles

J’accuse : Studies in Theatre

According to a possibly apocryphal story that is doing the rounds on the Internet, Steve Jobs watched the launch of the iPhone 4S from his favourite sofa in his home in Palo Alto. The man hailed as a visionary by the world’s press purportedly snacked on apples and rice pudding throughout the performance of Tim Cook: the man who had been the new anointed presenter of Apple’s latest breakthrough. The “source” claims that at the end of the show Jobs smiled as if to say “all things are in good hands” but did not utter a word.

The story is not exactly “Acts of the Apostles” material but you can see where the cult of Jobs is beginning to take shape. Jobs the visionary, the prophet of all things new, the philosopher with a positive attitude about misfits and changing the world. Here was a man who had influenced the globe − the whole world − with his ideas. It was beyond innovation. Innovation is “only” about improvement − making things better. Jobs went one step further. He made things “different”. A Times (UK) columnist put it neatly: Jobs did not give people what they wanted − he gave them products they could never have imagined.

It is somewhere there − the blasphemous fine line between innovation and creation. This prophet of the age of technology challenged the status quo − and won. No matter what he was “creating”, how far his philosophy took him, what Jobs did best was standing on that big empty stage and work the audience into an elevated sense of expectancy until, with the wave of one hand (and click of a button), the latest step in the Darwinian evolution of Apple goods was unveiled.

Yes. Steve Jobs of the limited wardrobe and unlimited intelligence was a master of theatrical presentation. He may have sat back and just given us his products through the usual channels of marketing but he chose to break barriers there too. Apple became a symbol of desirability and speciality − taking brand fidelity to new frontiers. And much of this usually culminated in the special launch events theatrically prepared and magnificently executed by the man who wanted to challenge our way of thinking and whose legacy will live on for much, much longer. Thank you Steve.

Wucking fankers

On Student’s Day this year we were regaled with a bit of amateur theatrics that took place on the university quadrangle. The dramatis personae included, the MegaloMinister Austin Gatt and a set of ministerial groupies, a cross-section of the student body, a couple of journalists faithfully following the ministerial route, and a hitherto unknown Theatre Studies student who goes by the name of Nicolà Abela Garrett. First impressions count, and the first impression we got was of a student who was mightily miffed because of the Arriva Disservice and who voiced such “miffiness” in no uncertain terms by directing a series of expletives to the minister who sleeps soundly at night. Such “miffiness” was couched in expletives of a rude-ish kind and was dutifully reported by the reporters-in-waiting in their respective online and printed papers.

My first reaction was “bravo” to the girl followed by a secondary reflection on the irony of it being Student’s Day. Oh how times have changed since the days when a critical word or two directed at government ministers would be interpreted as an invitation to a herd of thugs for an impromptu “rag day” in tal-Qroqq featuring the accessories of bare fists and knuckledusters. Any inquiries a propos the past should be directed (among others) to Michael Frendo (then esquire) − and no, Deborah Schembri, remembering the past is not an issue of political convenience.

Well done theatre studies student then. A child had finally stood up and told the Emperor the truth about his clothes. Wouldn’t it be great if more people thought and spoke their mind (and voted with it) than just Abela Garrett? What happened next − from all sides of our political power spectrum was an unfolding of scenes in our very own theatrical scenario.

One sees red

The media machine for the Opposition took up its position for scene two. Abela Garrett was projected to heroine status notwithstanding her choice of vulgar language that surely was not fitting for our sede sapientae. Nothing wrong there of course; however, those blessed with a long-term memory could detect a certain hypocrisy by the red media when it came to “judging” students and their ways.

RWD (that’s rewind) back to the last election when a young Caruana Galizia junior invited a cameraman of red persuasion to “f*** off” in no uncertain terms. The very same journalists (and party) that seemed to be exalting Garrett’s proficiency today had taken quite a different tack at the time − pushing the “indignated” buttons. At the time, no opportunity was wasted to call students all sorts of words − FFW (that’s fast forward) to today and all seems to have been forgiven.

Abela Garrett went on to apologise for her language but not for her outburst. The apology was also covered in all the papers along with a sort of investigation/witch hunt into the identity of the individual/individuals who in true MI5/CIA style had stopped Abela Garrett and given her a “talking to” while asking her for her particulars. Conspiracy theories flew across the Internet boards until it turned out that the “bully” in question had acted “spontaneously”.

Spontaneity

Mr Xuereb, a MITA employee, defended his vigorous questioning of the foul-mouthed student by claiming that his was a spontaneous and undirected reaction. The implication is clear − this is not a ministerial investigation with possible repercussions. It was an individual taking the matter into his own hands. Interestingly though, “spontaneous” was his defence and “lack of spontaneity” was the main criticism directed at the solo protester from the blue corner of the spectrum.

Apparently, according to the likes of Daphne Caruana Galizia and Lou Bondì, the fact that Abela Garrett’s protest was premeditated somehow lessens the value of the protest itself. Funny. I remember how both these advocates of spontaneous protesting defended Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s not so spontaneous antics in the run up to the last election. We have it from the horse’s mouth − in a recent interview with Josanne Cassar, Pullicino Orlando recounts how he was prepped and trained for those eventful days. In JPO’s words: “I was instructed by Richard Cachia Caruana and Joe Saliba to chase after Alfred Sant whenever he spoke publicly, in order to confront him when he did mention me”. Back then it seemed all very worthwhile for the Caruana Galizias of this world to defend the JPO charades to the hilt. Bah. Plus ça change.

Since when does preparing for an act of protest make it any less effective or truthful? It seems that the Times of Malta has sacked Mr Bonanno, the journalist who told Nicola about Gatt’s visit. Of what pray is this young hack guilty? Of telling Nicola about Austin’s visit? Why? Was it secret? It’s not like it’s a frame up to which he was accomplice. Had there been a false story and had he willingly accepted to become an accessory to it then sure, sack the guy. Here though we had a journalist losing his job because instead of following up on a fax announcing a protest in Valletta he “took his notebook” to the scene of a pre-planned protest he had learnt about via Facebook.

Theatrics and the public

Nicola Abela Garrett chose to enact her own little drama. She planned an ambush on Malta’s sleepy minister. It was well executed and actually got much more attention than is normally reserved to Ministerial hecklers in the standard press. The script included a few lies such as the bit about the bus from Attard to Naxxar and the missing of lectures (What lectures? Very few lectures have actually taken place since the launching of Arriva). She does not lie though when she voices the anger of all commuters who have had enough. As I said earlier − good for her.

The reactions to Abela Garrett’s very public showing were typically overblown. From the Labourite praises on the one hand to the character assassinations by the usual suspects in the Nationalist fold on the other. We are not new to political theatricals. Our very polarised television programmes that are supposed to be investigative are just well-rehearsed Q&A sessions with every pre-selected invitee playing his part. It was amusing this week to watch Lou “indignado” Bondì get hot under his collar on his blog (Lou, a blog?) about a new Saviour Balzan programme during which Balzan interviewed one of the abuse victims.

Bondì would have wished Saviour to ask a few questions that Bondì had prepared but, unsurprisingly, Saviour failed to pick up on this invitation. Bondì knows full well how crucial it is to the theatrics of TV for a programme’s presenter to control the questions as well as the panel of invitees. It’s theatre Lou − and the bad actors’ mask soon falls off on its own so there’s no need to worry about Saviour and his bias… it conforms fully to the journalistic standards on TV that you have so gotten us used to.

Curtain call

That’s all I have for this week. Actually I have more but time and space constraints play their part − as do editorial deadlines. I’d like to borrow the Apple philosophy statement for my concluding lines. I adopted this philosophy for J’accuse when I started the blog and I like to think, every now and then… that I still have that streak of craziness in me that obliges me to think different. Thank you again Steve Jobs.

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.

www.akkuza.com is running on slow at the moment due to other commitments. Bear with us and in the meantime enjoy the new flourishing of blogs in Malta’s volatile blogosphere. Most of all: Think Different.

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Values

Think Different (1955-2011)

Is it hyperbolic of me to describe the death of Steve Jobs as something on the similar scale as living in the time of Galileo Galilei and being told of his death? Much will be written by many in acknowledgement of the greatness of this man and his impact on the globe. Us willing Apple Slaves feel like we have lost a part of us and still cannot get over the feeling that the world is not the same after Steve Jobs. But this is the man who told us : “Those people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are those that actually do.”

I found this old-ish video of Jobs speaking about values and marketing. Here  is how he launches the campaign “Think Different” – a value that J’accuse espoused from the start as a blog and will keep upholding for as long as this blog lives.

Thank you Steve.

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do. – Apple Inc.

 

and the birth of Macintosh’s magic in 1984

 

Facebook Comments Box