|
There used to be a time when newspaper editors and columnists did not refer to people in their opinions or leaders. It was sort of not the custom.
Times change and today it is customary to be less vague and more direct. Is there a line we should draw to limit our reference to the men and women of this country? When does someone become eligible for a nasty mention in the press? What constitutes a public person and what is private?
Needless to say, there are no rules and the ethical questions are usually left to the discretion of the editor or editors’ board, owner and owners.
There is hardly an occasion to be lost. I am probably the last person on this blessed rock to pontificate over a set of rules. Indeed I am one who does not believe in rules.
The press keeps democracy in place. It serves the politicians with platforms and traps and it entices the public to take a closer look at topics and events. It encourages, it revels, it destroys and it directs.
And now to the reason for this preamble. There is a good measure of brouhaha over who will be the next state TV head. It appears that Vanessa MacDonald was rudely ignored after being given the impression that she was selected for the job. If the rumours are true than Missus MacDonald has suffered from the indecisiveness not of Austin G, but of his masters at Castille.
National TV cannot remain without a man or woman who can respond to the news and to spin in the same way some of the former Heads of News at PBS did. And so the newspapers continue to pursue the ‘chosen one’.
The Labour press are pointing all their guns on Nathaniel Attard who happens to be a senior NET journalist. They report he is the man chosen for the job and they are in no mood of welcoming his appointment. It is after all a normal reaction.
They know that PBS or Xandir Malta in the right hands can be turned to the advantage of one political party against the other. And let us face it, although we do not like it when they hit out at Where’s Everybody, it has to be said that some of the things they say are not entirely incorrect.
Before 1987, PBS was blatantly pro-Labour, and in the last 17 years it has been clearly promoting the government’s agenda, with a plethora of programmes siphoned and planted on the plates of the blue-eyed boys – all of who share one political allegiance.
It is therefore completely correct for politicians to question who gets chosen to such a sensitive post, but it does little to change our view that politicians have little credibility when it comes to broadcasting their views on public broadcasting.
Yet, the whole question of public broadcasting needs to be carefully scrutinised. Some moons ago, I had asked Joe Borg, the reverend who acts as editorial consultant at PBS, for his sincere comments on the quality of the new newsroom. He was more than certain that the news had improved. I looked on in wonder – what was he seeing that we were not seeing?
It does not take much to come to the conclusion that PBS news has deteriorated to such a level than not even the combined effort of MacDonald and Nathaniel Attard would do much to change the fracas at G’Mangia.
Last week, it was the weekend for Frans Agius, who chose to renege on an interview. He said that he would not talk on golf, but the next day he talked about golf on NET TV.
Now for one of those comments that many would describe as personal but that in the media world we would consider as perfectly legitimate and fair.
Dr Agius should revisit his choice of communications coordinator. The man who comes by the name of Randolph Spiteri does him more damage than good. He simply does not click with the press, unlike others in his position. He brings the worst out of you. He would be the right person you would want as a negotiator. His skills are as good as mine.
And let’s face it – he cannot stand this newspaper.
The reason for Mr Spiteri’s terse attitude towards this newspaper finds its roots in his strange admiration for David Casa – a politician which this newspaper has constantly queried and questioned.
There may be many who consider the question of hunting and trapping to be a nerdish subject. Yet if George Pullicino gets his way and does away with Spring trapping, it will liven up our countryside in so many ways.
Those of you who choose the countryside instead of a stroll down the concrete jungle at Bay Street will surely appreciate what it means to walk freely and not accosted by the dozens of trappers who build hideous hides and squat on public and private land.
I hardly ever find the courage to applaud a government minister, but there we go, there is always a first time.
Well done George!
|
