Here’s the significant bits of the Times report of one of the extensions of Plategate:

“The incident happened after the Magistrate gave evidence in the case instituted by the police against Ms Caruana Galizia for allegedly slandering the magistrate in various blogs on her website. (…) During her evidence, Magistrate Scerri-Herrera read out the parts of the blogs which she considered as being offensive and denied all claims that had been made. (…) The court turned down a request to issue a protection order for the magistrate by ordering a ban on the publication of blogs mentioning the magistrate.”

The Times proves to be as informed as Lou Bondi on the subject matter of blogs. It is evident here that the reporter had absolutely no clue about the difference between a blog, a post on a blog and a comment on a blog. The “various blogs on her website” bit is the huge giveaway. The website is, incidentally, a blog. It’s a blog called “Running Commentary” (or as we affectionately call it at J’accuse: the runs). What the magistrate probably read out are posts on the blog – the equivalent of mini-articles: which is why there were “various”.

Also, the Times correspondent should note that the request by the prosection would probably have been to order a ban on the publication of posts mentioning the magistrate – or alternatively a ban on the blog being published as a whole (the blog being The Runs). I tried to leave a comment for the Times – a few other comments have been published later but mine seems to have been left out : I wonder why? they could have at least amended the article but I guess they have no clue on using the right terminology.

Here is my full comment (posted at 15.03 – as yet unpublished):

Another comment from the Unofficial Representative of the Non-Existent Guild of Bloggers in Malta.

The case deals with one (1) blog – Running Commentary by DCG.
What the Magistrate presumably read out in court were POSTS not BLOGS.
One can also presume that what the request before the presiding magistrate is to prohibit any POSTS on the BLOG mentioning the magistrate and not, as reported, “a ban on the publication of blogs mentioning the magistrate” – as the latter would mean that more than just the allegedly offending blog would be affected.

Times (and other) reporters please take note. It’s really not that complicated.

www.akkuza.com – blogging made easy

Meanwhile we thought it would only be right to dig out some of the first reactions on J’accuse to that election that was so close and yet so far in bringing out a change to our electoral system. Do you still remember the election that began with PN’s Par Idejn Sodi, Aldred Sant’s Hbieb tal-Hbieb, Harry’s Coalition and the new “third parties”? For us this was the election where J’accuse broke new ground as an open thinking ground away from the partisan controlled media – for our sins it provoked the birth of the Runs and a new shift in Maltese blogging.

Here’s the post entitled “The Real King Makers” from the 9th March 2008 – a day after the PN relative majority was confirmed. It would not be the first nor last post that would foretell the ills awaiting an abuse of the relative majority. I wonder if Lou will ask Tonio Borg what became of the plans for electoral reform?

The Real King Makers
As the Nationalist party breaks a day of suspense with the announcement of a Nationalist victory (and Labour is still reluctant to concede defeat although Maltastar has announced it), we have witnessed quite a few fingers being pointed to the voters for change during the last few hours. It was to be expected but sadly for the finger pointers they seem not to be aware that the biggest winner in this election is the argument in favour of a real change.

The indication given by Joe Saliba is that the relative majority enjoyed by the nationalist party is of 1,200 votes. Rent-a-pundits on Net TV have been quick to point out that this is not the first time that such a low margin has been registered – 1981 and 1950 being two other low margin wins. Which does not really mean that there is nothing to criticise about a very small majority but rather means that the system allows such an uncomfortable situation to happen very often.

In the light of the need for change movement that has been gathering during election time, the first, early analysis is that now more than ever it is evident that the need for a new politics is being felt. The people have spoken and it is understandable that the party that in the words of Lawrence Zammit won on penalties feels the need to relax and release the tension. When the beer drinking and back tapping is over we will see how well the greater of the two parties who garnered less than 50% of the votes can read the signs.

For the signs are now there : added on to the pre-electoral admission of a faulty system that disenfranchises voters and that never gives a clear picture of the real will of the electorate. We had the large number of voters who failed to pick up their vote which must also be factored into the equation when considering those who for some reason or another are not comfortable with voting in this system.

What are the signs? Well for a party that would not have been comfortable to govern in coaltion with another party that gathered at least 3,800 votes to merit a seat in parliament it is now sending some confused signs. So you are uncomfortable that the 3,800 top-up to form a government would be some sort of dictatorship of a minority but when you have 1,200 votes difference over the ones you consider as mortal enemies in opposition you feel like you represent the whole Maltese nation? Am I the only one to feel that there is something wrong in that equation?

Is not this weird sense of justice all the more compounded by the fact that we will have in all probability a government of a minority? Do not forget that the Nationalist party now officially represents less than 50% of the electorate and it is only thanks to a constitutional provision that it can form a government.

The only way for the Nationalists to sit comfortably in their parliamentary seats for the next four years will be for them to humbly accept that this election should be a lesson – that they are not the popular party that they claim to be and that its time for some spring cleaning. Flimkien kollox possibli sounds hollow when that Flimkien is made to represent less than half of the voting population.

I start yelling the warnings from now (and I call on all those who spoke about the time for such discussion being between elections).

- Ignore this need for change at your own risk. -

In the meantime Labour and AD have a lot of soul searching to do. AD risked the nightmare situation for a couple of hours this afternoon. They would never have been forgiven by an already blinkered crowd had they managed to get Labour into government by electing Harry. Labour will need to really dig deep and have the perfect chance for a start. If they effect a radical change fast enough and build a party around policies they could even be in time to take up the banner of reform.

From party funding to party media ownership to electoral reform. It is now that the forces of the movement of change can start working and create the right environment for a new beginning. The result does not spell doom for an opposition because a rational nationalist government will surely not toy with provoking more people out of arrogance or the insulting tomfoolerey which almost risked it its new mandate this time round.

Le Roi est mort! Vive le Roi!

As I walked out of the cinema this evening I could only think of Wonderland and how fantastically fabricated it all is with its nonsensical cutting-edge reality. Yes, it is a nonsensical paradox that flummoxes and zooms straight into the grey matter of the brain through the bothersome 3D glasses you are obliged to carry throughout the fantasmagorical performance. Nonsensical cutting-edge reality can only be experienced in two places – the first is that portrayed wonderfully by Tim Burton and the second is the one we have (dis)affectionately come to refer to as “Only In Malta”.

Pray do reserve a bit of patience for me, your bearer of phantsy stuff this week, particularly when you encounter the odd pseudo-word that immediately evokes the red underline-ings of a word/processing document. You see it is hard to shed the influence of Lewis Carroll once you get infected with the bug. The author was brilliant (or should I say brillig?) at coining new words in such a way that they would still make sense because of the context in which he masterly entwined them. Anyhoo. Let’s see what happened in our corner of underland.

’Twas Brillig

’Twas only in this wonderland of ours that the provocations launched last week from this platform could be ignored with such audacious abandon. You will remember the little matter of my analysis of the Death of Journalism and how I argued that Malta’s Award Winning Talk Show Programme and its host abdicated from their investigative responsibility in cunning collaboration with Malta’s foremost media expert. I almost believed that my time would have been better spent organising tea parties in the company of the Mad Hatter and the March Hare were it not for the fact that the article did get feedback though not, understandably, from the parties that were, so to speak, in the dock.

Mr Lou Bondi and Fr Joe Borg preferred to ignore my questions (unless of course there is a letter in today’s paper*) and concentrate on whatever they felt should attract their precious attention. Meanwhile, those who, like me, tend to buy the whole panoply of available English literature on a Sunday, would have discovered (surely to their unbounded joy) that J’accuse had been twice served for the discerning palate. The geezers over at MaltaToday had availed themselves of the very legal right under the Creative Commons licence to reproduce whole chunks of my blogging analysis. Well, so long as they do not do it regularly I’m sure we can deal with all the publicity.

Cheek apart, we were vindicated within 24 hours of our articles appearing in print in spite of the fact that Bondi & Borg would not deign to reply to our queries. Last Monday the Bondiplus investigative consortium settled down for another nail-biting episode that was meant to include the presence of Malta’s proof that vampires do exist and our own version of Hugo Chavez Wannabeism. For some reason or other, the mass rallying presence of John Bencini and Tony Zarb (MUT and GWU respectively) was forfeited at the last moment.

Only a week before Bondi had sheepishly accepted the absence of both Caruana Galizia and Musumeci without so much as a sneeze. Last Monday though, the Bondiplus machine went on the warpath. Rachel was despatched to Valletta to harass and harangue the poor stirrers of mass hysteria into submission. The tactic Rachel used was basically to stun them with a barrage of complicated questions such as “Why are you not coming on Bondiplus? Why are you not coming on Bondiplus?” And for good measure, “Why are you not coming on Bondiplus?” Bencini attempted to dodge Rachel like he probably would a ray of sunshine or a silver bullet. Tony Zarb seemed to be flummoxed by the questions only to regain his composure (so to speak) towards the end and give Lou Bondi the answer he had been looking for “We have said all we had to say”.

Was Lou happy with the answer? He was happy to accept all of Daphne’s doings in the blog without the slightest hint of any further questions just the week before. Was he happy this week? Of course not. Hell hath no fury like a Bondi scorned. Suddenly he was issuing press releases claiming discrimination of sorts before leading to what was – at least for J’accuse – the sublime cherry on the cake.

Bencini and Zarb had requested a preview of the questions by email. Nyet said Bondi. Not only that, but he continued to protest, first on Facebook and then in what has now become a customary epistle to the press: “follow up questions are necessary in such an interview”. At which point you expected to see the Cheshire Cat apparate right in front of you while Absalom would be puffing away on some hallucinogenic substance filling the air with smoke. Follow up questions? On Bondiplus? Well I never. Curiouser and curiouser.

The Slithy Toves

What was all that ruckus in Valletta anyway? We had a double-whammy of a protest against the rising cost of bills and water services. Like a cheap Hollywood sequel nothing much was expected to come out of it unless of course you are the crazy sort who thinks in a Carollian sort of way. Tweedledum and Tweedledee assembled the massed cohorts in palace square and proceeded to remind us all why Malta is so desperately in need of real politicians. Meanwhile, in the hallowed hall of representative power the movers and shakers of progressive Malta were submitting a motion to repeal the utilities bill.

The inevitable result of this motion was a defeat of the Opposition and a reason for Messrs Zarb and Bencini to declare that “the people had been betrayed”. In Wonderland, the concept of a working democracy had once again gone haywire. A couple of unions had just discovered that the people do not like being heavily taxed (or in this case having subsidies removed in an aggressive manner) and that they could still perform the nonsensical show of force if they wanted to. The flexible bandwagon that is the progressive and moderate Opposition fancied its chances to seem like the bulwark of the people’s rights without having to perform the ginormous effort of effectively planning a clear economic programme out of this mess. And the rest is history.

What the Opposition and unions failed to see was that this is a legitimate action by a legitimately elected government. Unpopular as these measures are they are also necessary and, unless some genius in Hamrun comes up with a better idea of how to alleviate the utility bill paying misery without bankrupting the state, then all this hullabaloo must be seen as the farce that it was – an excuse to be seen stirring up the faeces without a clear idea of what to do next. What’s new anyway?

The Manxome Foe

For its part, the party in government has managed to create a semblance of an idea of a reunited group. Top J’accuse marks this week go to Gonzi’s cunning plan of keeping his team together via the system of reponsibilisation. The Franco Debonos of this world are being twinned with ministries in a sort of apprenticeship. It is not yet clear how the workings of this arrangement will actually come about (and whether they will cost anything more) but it is evident that whatever is at the helm of the PN has been scrambling for ideas on how to appease the broken pieces.

Which does not mean that all is fine and dandy. It means that the existence of a problem has been recognised (internally) and that something is being done about it. Will GonziPN manage to meld again? Is flimkien really possibbli? We’ll have to wait and assess the deliverables to see how this GonziPN mark II fares, but in the meantime we will remind Honourable Member Debono that his original crusade was not for a twinning project but for such things as the regulation of party financing. Anything new about that project?

Gyving and Grimbling

One problem GonziPN will really need to solve is the rapid loss of trust in all things institutional. On Saturday, for example, a number of environmental NGOs will join forces in a rally to highlight their concerns about “the environmental abuses that are taking place in every part of Malta and Gozo. This does not just include planning abuse but air pollution, lack of water conservation measures, illegal hunting and trapping, illegal occupation of the countryside, destruction of habitats and species, as well as encroachment of the countryside due to the Rationalisation scheme.”

The rally is called “Legality Now” and the name reflects the fact that the NGOs are not lobbying for the introduction of new environmental friendly laws but rather will be protesting at the lack of application and enforcement of laws that already exist. These citizens are not rallying behind a cry to back a policy or another – to give an example, it is not a “for or against hunting” kind of rally where one could take a political side on a political issue. The declared intention of the rally goes deeper – it is a manifestation of discontent with the state of enforcement of current laws.

This may seem like a tiny nuance to the casual observer but the express aims of this rally have much in common with one of the corollaries that have been drawn from Plategate. It is the lack of faith and trust in public institutions. It is one thing for political rallies to gather the masses in an effort to lobby in favour of the adoption of one policy or another – or to force the government to change its utility bill policy. It would be amiss to ignore the message this kind of rally is sending. They may not be the grievances leading to the serment du jeu de paume but these particular grievances are worth considering.

All three branches of the state are currently under heavy attack and the levels of trust that “the people” seem to have in the administrative, executive and the judiciary appear to be alarmingly low. This is not healthy for our democracy – it’s a rot that is setting in. The rot must be exposed, not in a partisan, self-interested kind of way but rather in an objective attempt at rediscovering what we want for the future of our nation.

Oh Frabjous Day!

Meanwhile in another corner of Wonderland, since our very own Inhobbkom Joseph has embarked on an illusory trip of his own – meeting bureaucrats on an educational programme described by his bumbling entourage as a State visit (Lord Help Us all) we might begin to despair on the shape of things to come. When the Leader of the Opposition goes to France on a trip intended for foreign visitors of all types (Iva, Tista’ tkun Int) and his press office attempt to disguise it as some form of state visit (We discussed the Lisbon Treaty – and the Future EU Presidency) you really have to begin to wonder whether you have fallen in some hole while following the waistcoat-clad rabbit.

Across the channel, the Italian political system is in a huge farcical mess. You’d love to poke fun at them only until you notice that it’s like peeping through the looking glass. It’s impossible… but only if you believe it is.

www.akkuza.com is now also a Facebook page that you can join. Come along and carry our facebook slogan with pride: Cut me, paste me, bite me.

This article and accompanying Bertoon were published on today’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

(*)No letter appeared in The Malta Independent, instead, Mr Lou Bondi preferred to tackle the extremely complicated question of the apparent bias of the Institute of Maltese Journalists (IGM). It’ like playing FIFA with Brasil but chosing to tackle Botswana rather than Argentina or Spain. Then again I guess Bondi was in a very good position to assess bias. Funny how the question of “aggression” being bloated up by partisan media is suddenly fashionable – would Bondi care to learn how it is another result of the school of bipartisan thought that produces mediocrity by the ton? Guess not. Prosit tal-programm Lou.

I am posting a plug for a rally that will take place on Saturday morning (J’accuse note: next Saturday 13th March @ 10 am) in Republic Street Valletta. The rally, that is being organised by a number of environmental NGOs is called “Legality Now” and concerns “the environmental abuses that are taking place in every part of Malta and Gozo. This does not just include planning abuse but air pollution, lack of water conservation measures, illegal hunting and trapping, illegal occupation of the countryside, destruction of habitats and species as well as encroachment of the countryside due to the Rationalisation scheme.” I am not often prone to promoting rallies on this blog – particularly because I find that rallies and general agglomerations of bodies yelling behind a poster or other a rather ineffective weapon nowadays – one that has been rendered powerless through overuse and abuse.

What interests me is the stated intention of the Environmental NGOs vis-a-vis the institutions they are targeting:

The Environmental NGOs appeal to the competent authorities and institutions in order to ensure law enforcement with regard to citizens’ rights in accordance with the Environmental standards operative in the European Union. (…) The environmental NGOs have been calling on the Prime Minister and MEPA for effective enforcement of the nature conservation laws. The Prime Minister has chosen to ignore these pleas for legality, hiding behind the plea of non-interference. Yet the authorities have in many cases considered themselves above the law, interpreting their own rules and policies to favour private interests at the expense of the rights of the Maltese society. The situation has become intolerable, strongly undermining democratic principles.

Citizens are not rallying behind a cry to back a policy or another – to give an example it is not a “for or against hunting” kind of rally where one could take a political side on a political issue. The declared intention of the rally goes deeper – it is a manifestation of discontent with the state of enforcement of laws that already exist.  This may seem like a tiny nuance to the casual observer but the express aims of this rally have much in common with one of the corollaries that have been drawn from Plategate. It is the lack of faith and trust in public institutions. It is one thing for political rallies to gather the masses in an effort to lobby in favour of the adoption of one policy or another. It would be amiss to ignore the message this kind of rally is sending. They may not be the grievances leading to the serment du jeu de paume but these particular grievances are worth considering – if not for their content for what they imply:

Encroachment of urban areas:
The encroachment of urban areas into the Maltese countryside has been an issue longing for solution but enforcements are few and far between. Lately, a number of permissions have been granted for major projects which are detrimental to the natural environment and also the quality of life of the residents in the vicinities. These unsustainable projects in many cases violate the Structure Plan and MEPA regulations.

Illegal hunting and trapping:
Widespread killing and trapping of protected species have long been well documented. Yet, the authorities to date have not taken the necessary actions to clamp down on these illegal activities. The Administrative Law Enforcement Unit with around 25 officers and a few vehicles remains understaffed, MEPA Enforcement Unit to deal with these crimes has one staff member and there are no policies in place to monitor the activities of thousands of hunters in the countryside.

Illegal Occupation of Public land:
There are thousands of illegally built hunting and trapping hides, tool rooms, so called boat houses and shanties occupying public land including EU protected Natura 2000 sites. Apart from a couple of odd cases, to date, the authorities have failed to remove these illegal structures and protect the Maltese countryside in the interest of public.

Loss of Biodiversity:
Being the International Year for Biodiversity, the enforcement of laws safeguarding this natural heritage should be on the forefront more than ever. Instead, Malta has no clear strategy of enforcing policies preventing the introduction and dispersal of alien species or the preventing of some of the most important drivers of biodiversity and habitat loss and desertification.

Air Pollution:
Air pollution from traffic and power plants and various forms of industrial activities is at an all-time high. EU limits on traffic pollution are being repeatedly breached, yet emission testing is still at a very low level. Marsa power station, the subject of the never-ending black dust saga, is not being properly maintained as it is due for closure. Smoke from the stacks is present at ground level in Kordin and Fgura. The choice of Heavy Fuel Oil for the Delimara Power Station extension involves use of a high-risk pollution removal system.

Water conservation:
Malta is facing crippling shortages of ground water due to unregulated extraction from the water table. However no steps are being taken to stop the use of illegal boreholes. Malta could even incur heavy EU fines due to the lack of a water management plan and adequate water conservation measures.

Now we could dedicate tons of comments to dismissing this as a usual protest of tree-hugging, ramble-loving greenies but I do believe that the underlying issue – the emergent dissatisfaction with the institutions that are meant to be enforcers and guardians of civil society merits attention of its own. That too is part of the rot that afflicts our society.

The facebook page for the event.

Tetris

Last night I chanced upon a programme called Tetris on La7. It was making quite a mockery of the latest ridiculous regulations afflicting Italian broadcasting in the run-up to the regional elections. The subject of last night’s programme was La censura and the guests on the programme were asked to investigate whether the media are being gagged (imbavagliati). As is usual in these situations, much of the programme centered around Silvio Berlusconi – or as they had to refer to him on the programme in order to circumvent the censorship edicts – il presidente del Milan.

Italy is passing through a hard time democratically speaking. Of course depending on whether you stand behind Berlusconi or behind the ever-hopeful left you will have a different concept of what levels of rot have corrupted democracy. be that as it may, the recent cases indicating the surfacing of a new Tangentopoli have demonstrated that the first waves of Tangentopoli in the early nineties only served to change the face of the political elite but not the substance and modus operandi. Watching the panelists discuss Tangentopoli I that brought about the fall of the historical parties in Italy (Democrazia Cristiana anyone?) I was shocked by the realisation of how much time has been wasted in Malta. We still have not had Tangentopoli I because about the same time a still healthy nationalist party had taken the obvious path out of Cro-Magnon land and led us belatedly into the twentieth century.

One point that was raised in the programme was that even at the height of political scandals that uncover the extreme rot in a democratic system – and the dangerous lack of accountability of institutions – the people are only attracted to the information when it is sensational. Carlo Freccero (Rai4 director) pointed out that the peak of attention during Tangentopoli was reached with the famous telephonic interceptions. Once the Reality Show of the politicians had set in the attention of the masses was (temporarily) won over. Once the main waves of the scandal had passed and the marketing make over of the parties was completed (remember “Scendo in campo” by a young(ish) Berluska?) the masses returned to being numbed by the usual weekly dose of pink scandal and football matches (until even football got its reality show with Calciopoli).

Although there were many more themes to dwell upon in this programme (I’ll be damned but notwithstanding all this technology I still am unable to record something off the TV) including the inevitable blog vs MSM debate (check out generazioneblog for interesting ways of using blogs in politics). What got me thinking most though was this “Reality Show” aspect. Considering the mechanisms of democracy, the demos is an important part of the equation. For any change short of the revolutionary or military coup, the demos must be convinced that something is wrong in the State of X (insert state of choice). Without their attention and their vote nothing can happen. A programme panelist (Barbara Serra) pointed out the advantages of the English system of accountability with politicians directly dependent on the electors (unlike Italy where people choose the list not the candidate).

How to get their attention though? it seems more and more likely that sensationalism will become a much more valuable weapon than rhetoric and argumentation. Scandals and delving into the private lives of the altruistic saints that run our institutions might become the inevitable key to solving the institutional problems of the state and its representatives. This does not only extend to the directly elected politicians but also to administrators, the judiciary and the ties that bind the system to the private interests that oil the machinery of corruption. We might joke that it is inevitable in an Italian talk show but the conclusion was that corruption is universally pervasive and very difficult to eradicate. Corruption takes different levels – from the backhander to the “fettering of discretion” in order to give favours (as explained by Garner in his Administrative Law opus). Once the rot sets in it gets much more difficult to distinguish normal practice from the legitimate practice.

What are the tools to challenge this rot? Has the fourth estate become sufficiently corrupt to be unable to challenge it? Are the new modes of communication a possible solution? Are they enough? More importantly – is the resort to scandal a legitimate weapon in order to catch the attention of the people? Like Father Borg I am asking questions. Unlike him, I’m very interested in what you have to say.

***

Desigual

As an aside, I was intrigued by a little rant on the Runs about the plebs lack of fashion knowledge. What intrigued me was the use of Desigual as a demarcation line between the fashionistas and the fashionmanistax (I hope Charles Cauchi gets that one). A few months ago – May 2009 – to be exact in an article called Taste I had used Desigual and their slogan as an example of how politics and fashion appeal to different crowds. Desigual’s wonderful ad campaigns centered on the idea of “it’s not the same” – dare to be different. The PN campaign at the time featured the infamous Taste ad which reminded us that “Taste is such a personal thing” while heavily kneading the “guilt by association” tactic into the mind of sensation-seeking voters. Taste could be personal but would you really dare to be different and vote for Louis Grech and Marlene Mizzi if they are in the same party as Jason Micallef?

Really. Some people should wear what they preach. And Desigual might not be happy with their latest personalised campaign should they find out about it. I’m sure they’d hate to be found guilty by association (of sending contradictory messages of course).

A word from the wise of old. The issue of the behaviour of public persons is not exactly one that started to be discussed today. The internet might deceive us into believing that this kind of questioning kicked off shortly after Tim Berners Lee’s “invention”. Wrong.

As of antiquity, the current issue that has burnt through the pages of printed and online journalism alike (and which merits a better more profound and objective analysis) was already being discussed. Take that great man from the family of the chickpeas – Marcus Tullius Cicero – who dedicated an essay called De Officiis to the best way to live, behave and observe moral obligations (Wikipedia). In Book I of the essay he even gets to discuss an item that is very topical in 2010:

At this point it is not at all irrelevant to discuss the duties of magistrates, of private individuals, [of native citizens,] and of foreigners. It is, then, peculiarly the place of a magistrate to bear in mind that he represents the state and that it is his duty to uphold its honour and its dignity, to enforce the law, to dispense to all their constitutional rights, and to remember that all this has been committed to him as a sacred trust.

Cicero’s reference of the sacrality of the magisterial role is not metaphorical in this case. De Officiis was the second book of all time to be printed after Gutenberg’s bible. Quite a feat but judging by its influence on mores through the ages, this record is more than fitting. The objective analysis of the issue that affects the judicial system in Malta has been sidetracked by the petty wars on all sides – each to their own interests.

Independently of the facts and allegations in particular circumstances, it is evident to any objective observer that a period of reflection, informed analysis and legislated reform is not only required from the proper fora but is essential to avoid the collapse of a system on which depends the very essence of the rule of law. The first faults that are apparent are in the eyes of the beholders – the very subjects of the law (who are subjects in order to be free). More action is required. It can no longer come from the bleating quarters of the fourth estate (misused or otherwise).

There is an interesting corollary to the maxim that states that “justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.” It’s time to rebuild the people’s trust in the judiciary. Cicero, wherefore art thou? 

Iustitiae partes sunt non violare homines, verecundiae non offendere, in quo maxime vis perspicitur decori.

(Transl: Justice consists in doing no injury to men; decency in giving them no offense. It is the function of justice not to do wrong to one’s fellow-men; of considerateness, not to wound their feelings; and in this the essence of propriety is best seen.)

Trying to bypass the download and directly playing “Heavy Rain” also resulted in a new error message – apparently the Trophy Room could not be reached. Each error message was accompanied with a mystical number: 8001050F. When I finally decided to google the error message I discovered that the fault was not restricted to Chez Moi but was apparently the result of a global bug that has attacked the “fat” version of PS3- or in consumerist capitalist affluential terms : “older versions”. It turns out that the PS3 network had been afflected by the bug since Feb 28th and no fix was available until last night. It was the first time that I had fallen victim of a global bug (unless I count the influenza virus of course) but it felt weird and helpless. I was amazed at the reactivity of the net.

Global news networks were slow on the take while blogs – particularly specialised ones – had not only reported the bug but had also begun  various discussions such as the utility of having a gamebox that is constantly connected. The online lore has it that previously in the days of MS-DOS everyone with a bit of knowhow could tackle bugs in their own way on their PC. Nowadays the complete experience provided by gaming machines comes with the obligation to depend on those tecchies in Japan if something happens.

Thankfully, the workers at SONY Japan have announced that the bug has been fixed.

And we’re back again. Just in case we needed to make a point about the anomalous lowering of standards on the by now infamous Bondiplus a week ago we have a little “scoop” for you. It would appear that Bondiplus will be shorn of its GWU and MUT panel members this evening since both unions have refused to participate on the show. Here’s Lou Bondi’s take on the issue on facebook (where else? how long till J’accuse gets unfriended?) (my underlining):

Lou: Flash News: The GWU and MUT or any of the other unions have refused to take part in Bondiplus this evening. Neither did they accept to give us a prerecorded interview. On Saturday and Sunday they went on Super One twice within a span of 12 hours.

A lady named Sue asked whether they gave a reason for this late defection and here is Lou’s answer (again, my underlining):

Lou: Susan, no they did not give a reason. They only wanted us to send them questions by email, which is unacceptable for two reason – we are a TV programme (not a newspaper) and followup questions are necessary in such an interview.

Bingo! First of all how dare the GWU and MUT (and other insignificant unions that number only a couple of hundred members – pace Bondi) participate on Super One and NOT on awardwinning Bondiplus? Is Bondi aspiring for a sort of par condicio of some sort? Are the GWU & MUT going to be obliged to balance out their appearances on Labour’s TV by appearing on Bondiplus (aired on national television)?

Better still is the answer given to Susan. Lou finds the the GWU and MUT requests unacceptable. They did not settle for the prerecorded interview. Worse still they insisted on being told what questions will be asked and would thus be avoiding follow up questions.

Well Lou. How about you take all the declarations of the GWU and MUT made in the press AND on Super One as the source of their position? After all only a week ago you were quite prepared to take the contents of a blog being “all that she has to say, (if not more snigger snigger)”. The bumbling unions have been quite active and reported in the media (presumably via the long winded press releases) so judging by Lou’s standards of investigation last week he could go ahead and take all that was reported as read.

Follow up questions? Since when? Last week they did not seem to be necessary – what’s the big deal now?

You see Lou. I tend to agree that follow up questions are necessary in your kind of programme. I agree that sending people a set of prepared questions would defeat the spirit of a talk show- – particularly one that seeks answers and clarification. You’re right Lou, you are not a newspaper and the best scenario for tonight’s programme would have Zarb and Bencini sitting at the table answering the questions you pose legitimately in the interests of journalistic investigation. What I fail to see is how come you suddenly feel this way with regard to Zarb and Bencini but had no problem with Musumeci or Caruana Galizia.

By the way, congrats for the Malta TV Award. I’m sure you feel you deserved it.

One of the most violent Atlantic Storms to hit Western Europe passed over Luxembourg (and more particularly -in my case – the J’accuse abode) yesterday afternoon. From the warm comfort of the study, behind the double-glazing, I could witness the full force of the strong winds (reaching 105 km/h) passing through the Parc de Merl and carrying branches, leaves and debris along with them. The biggest work that the storm called Xynthia caused me was to occasionally venture onto the terrace to pick up the latest stray object that blew onto it. The greatest prize of the day is a light laundry basket – probably from one of the surrounding gardens.

Many persons were not so lucky. The death toll from the storm currently counts 50 persons, 45 of which are from France (4 in Spain, 1 in Germany). In Luxembourg the firemen received 3,000 calls, 760 of which were urgent. 420 calls were for uprooted trees, 161 for roofs falling apart (tiling), and 40 for scaffolding that broke loose. The injury toll in Luxembourg amounts to 4 people while 15 people who were intelligent enough to venture into forests needed saving. A large number of roads have been closed and Luxair flights were cancelled during the day. It appears that Xynthia headed for Belgium and Germany after leaving Luxembourg (wind without frontiers) while showing no sign of abating. The storm had formed over the Atlantic and was one the cause of the flooding in Madeira, Portugal.

Last Monday, journalism in Malta descended to an unprecedented depth. For a long time now, Maltese journalism has had to carry the labels and innuendos that are the result of being just another graft in the political game between two behemoths intent on a zero-sum race to mediocrity. The lack of quality and audacity in journalism was at first a spin-off and then an accomplice of the great numbing and dumbing down of public perception.

Until Monday the 22nd, journalism was a victim of partisan bigotry turned perpetrator. Last Monday, in a programme conducted by Malta’s record holding, longest-running talk-show host, this unholy alliance of political convenience and neutered journalism gave birth to a new child: political expediency as we know it was blended away and the “journalistic” Frankenstein attempted clumsily to take its first few steps in its very own interests. Elsewhere they’ve taken to calling it “wheels within wheels”.

Gurnalizmu fuq kollox

Last Monday’s edition of Bondiplus hammered the final nail into the coffin of “investigative journalism” in Malta. Readers of J’accuse will already be familiar with the two-part posting in which I outlined how Bondiplus on Monday the 22nd February was a sorry advert for investigative journalism today (visit www.akkuza.com for an in-depth analysis). Lou Bondi, who, if you were to go by the spiel on the Where’s Everybody website, is a record-breaker in Maltese talk-show land, made a meal of this programme that was supposed to be an investigation into the Caruana Galizia and Scerri Herrera saga – what we at J’accuse call “Plategate”.

They did not call it “Plategate”. They couldn’t for reasons best known to them and which we can assume from their subsequent behaviour. Lou Bondi opted to promote this programme on Facebook thusly: “Il-blog ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia, il-Magistrat Consuelo Scerri Herrera u il-Perit Robert Musumeci diskussi l-lejla f’Bondiplus”. A few moments later he would add that anyone expecting sensationalism would be disappointed. – Bondiplus after all boasts the slogans “journalism above all” and “thinking allowed”.

Once the programme kicked off we were told that its aim would be to examine “il-principji li jincidu fuq dan id-dibattitu pubbliku” (The principles that apply to this public debate). The vaguely defined remit of the programme was basically an extension of Fr Joe Borg’s ethical disquisitions – the demarcation between public and private, the duty of journalists to report, how far one can invade the private lives of public persons, when should a journalist report (at some point there was a huge screen with “Meta ghandhom jinkixfu il-borom?” – or something to that effect).

It turned out to be anything but that, and managed to create more questions than answers in the process. I have had a taster of Lou Bondi’s inability to engage in an argument without resorting to personal attacks. This week we witnessed his written mauling of a colleague of the printed press who dared ask Bondi a set of pertinent questions regarding last Monday’s programme. I had asked some of these questions myself in the aforementioned posts on my blog and I was not surprised that there was quite an overlap with those asked by Matthew Vella. The fact is that any freethinking individual endowed with a critical mentality would come up with the same questions.

J’accuse

From the moment Lou Bondi’s caveat of being “friends” with the (ancillary) subjects of his programme came through the screen, you could sense that it was all going to go Pete Tong. Fr Joe Borg being the only guest on the programme came as no surprise, since Daphne had already informed her readers of this long before Bondiplus had told its viewers. The two men sat in front of each other going through the motions of a question and answer session about the ethical issues behind the whole hullabaloo while actually demonstrating as much investigative journalism as could be expected of Pravda or Granma at the height of communist Soviet Union and Cuba combined.

At one point in the programme Lou explained (to Fr Borg – who else?) that journalists could take a piece of news and make it this size (spreads arms wide) or make it this size (almost touches index fingers together). He was obviously referring to the power of the editor to choose certain screenshots and not others, adopt certain tones in voiceovers and – most crucial of all – present a story from a particular perspective. The irony was lost on both men; while they claimed to discuss the elephant in the room they seemed intent on doing anything but that – and they used the complete control of the medium at hand to try to avoid doing so. Which leads us to the great indictment.

Bias

If Lou Bondi wanted to discuss the ethical principles behind the issue of private and public lives and the duties of journalists when faced with information such as that contained in the allegations, why did he hold back the information that he too was present at one of the meals hosted by Magistrate Herrera that are at the source of “Plategate”? How could he believe that this was not a crucial piece of the puzzle – a piece just as crucial as his honest declaration that all parties to the scandal are his friends? What makes Bondi believe that he is capable of adopting “a clinical approach while investigating” – when even one of his friends accuses (Times editor) Ray Bugeja on her blog of not being able to do the same for having also been present at some dinner party?

What is at the basis of the editorial choice to start the programme with the police interrogation, thus casting Daphne as the victim and deviating from the crucial point (from a journalistic and ethical point of view) that “Plategate” started off as a vendetta? It is an obvious conscious decision of the producer to weave and present the story in pieces and in the wrong chronological order. Here is a programme examining ethical questions facing journalists as to when they are entitled to gather information, and when they should divulge it, only to blatantly ignore the facts that were available, thanks to Daphne’s own admission in her blog at the start of “Plategate”.

Bondi chose to take Daphne’s blog (as well as the pieces Daphne allowed Bondi to have of her interrogation) as the full evidence on Daphne’s side. Incredible. Malta’s self-declared sans pareil of investigative journalism failed to bring Daphne on stage for some cross-questioning Bondi-style. Why? It’s all too easy.

Blind Men’s Bluff

It was not just easy, it also fit in with the second important piece of Bondi’s jigsaw. Media expert Fr Joe Borg had already woven together the first parts of the next piece with his claim of an “ungilded silence” – the same claim that we answered last week. The theory goes that within the mainstream media and blogosphere it is only Fr Joe Borg who appears to want to tackle the issues behind “Plategate”. According to his most recent post: “The mainstream media have a role to play: a role of investigation and commentary. This role is being abjectly abdicated”– a claim that is absolutely absurd.

Searching for one of the posts on my blog, I checked the Sunday papers of 21 February and counted 10 articles that dealt with “Plategate”. Throughout Monday’s Bondiplus, reference was made to two articles from the Sunday papers – none of which feature on my list. The first was the satirical column in it-Torca and the second was an article in Illum by Toni Abela. Father Borg’s radar in the media only seems to light up when he is somehow offended. He showed a superficial ability to remember (vaguely) an offensive part of a column in It-Torca (even forgetting the author’s pseudonym) but still fails to see the myriad other articles – including those directed at him (the J’accuse title in last week’s Indy was “Father Borg’s Guild of the Dumb”).

The only use Bondi had for Sunday papers was a “scoop” from Illum, which turned out to be no real scoop but a feeble attempt to conjure up an ethical example out of Toni Abela while the elephant in the room named “Daphne and Her Blog” continued to be ignored by the two gurus of the local media scene. I was tempted to put it down to research blunders – like Bondi’s obvious inability to get to grips with blogging jargon or Fr Borg’s lack of preparedness regarding the content of the codes of ethics under (journalistic) examination. It was not. It was blatantly obvious to anyone who cared to question that the real issues here were being skirted and that the programme was developing into one huge farce.

Lou (can’t) read

Had the programme stuck to its original aims, it would have performed a valuable service. There is a need for more journalistic verve and investigation. There is also a need for a clear pointer into the limits of the powers of the fourth estate. Bondiplus abdicated from this kind of investigation and instead fluffed on for the entirety of the programme, delving into useless sidetracking. They eliminated any possible alternative perspective and consciously ignored other points of view that were easily available. While Lou’s counterparts in the BBC were producing brilliant podcasts and programmes on super-injunctions, private lives v public interests and more, here was a programme that mistook non-sensationalism for neutered journalism – whether intentional or not the end effect was disastrous.

I understand that Malta is a small country and that Lou might have felt uncomfortable exposing his friends (or using them as examples) to the kind of questioning this programme needed. He would have been better off not doing the programme at all. In the end we could only conclude that it had no bite, no substance and absolutely no direction other than deviation and misinformation. His hysterical reaction to the few prodding questions that followed the airing only served to prove the point. I know well enough that I can expect the same treatment – and have no problem with that. This is my feedback – an extensive version of which is available on the blog in two parts (posts entitled: “Blind Men’s Bluff” and “Lou Can’t Read”).

The difference between J’accuse (the blog and column) from a MaltaToday journalist is the simple fact that Bondi cannot claim that I have any vested interest other than obtaining the truth. The Bondiplus programme shied away from asking the real questions. It is the culmination point of the race to mediocrity that we have been pointing at for too long. With this kind of programming one of the main checks and balances of democratic society crashes to the ground faster than a World Trade Centre tower. It is a dangerous premonitory signal of things to come. Ironically, the very actions Bondiplus was supposed to investigate last Monday had already served as a warning themselves. Bondiplus served to turn a spotlight on the existing vacuum.

La Lumière

I see this article (and parallel blog posts) as “just a revolutionary medium to speed the explosion of truth and justice. I have just one passion, that of the light, in the name of humanity that has so suffered and has the right to happiness. My flaming protestation is just the cry of my soul.” Those are not my words; they are those of Emile Zola, the original J’accuse.

When almost five years ago (10 March 2005) I began blogging on J’accuse I did so with the same spirit of journalistic enthusiasm as I do today. You, the reader, are asked to view today’s indictment as a warning. Our society may have many hidden corners that are rotting away and that need to be exposed in order to be renewed and fixed. But if the first trenches of the guardians of our society, the searchers for the truth, can so easily abdicate their responsibility then we are in for a hard time – and don’t expect those that have long nurtured and fed off the bad habits to lift a finger to change that.

I cannot sufficiently stress that the full analysis of what went wrong on Monday 22nd February is available on www.akkuza.com. J’accuse is proud to inform its readers that it has been selected for the third Thinkaboutit! Blogging Competition (Developing World) that kicks off in Brussels in March.