Flash news: not everyone has an agenda

It speaks volumes about this country’s mistrust of the media, that when opinion columnists speak up against what they don’t agree with, many people’s eyes narrow in suspicion and friendly waves suddenly turn into hardened looks of cold disapproval.

Oh well, it goes with the job. But here’s a novel thought: if you don’t want us to criticize what the government is doing, how about if it does things properly and ethically in the first place?

Once, during the previous administration, I was quite taken aback when an acquaintance greeted me with the words “se ddum tikteb kontra l-gvern int?” (how long are you going to keep writing against the government?). I think I was so taken aback not only because of the impertinent tone, but because this was someone in the legal profession whom I assumed was more level-headed than that. Not for the first time, of course, my assumption was wrong. 

When it comes to partisan politics in Malta, you can NEVER assume that people you know socially or even on a personal level can keep a clear head and speak dispassionately. As I have often (belatedly) realized, this is such a powder keg subject that you never quite know when someone who is usually quite pleasant is suddenly going to explode because you touched a raw nerve (for which read: you’ve criticized something their party has done).  At times, instead of an explosion, you are inexplicably met by a frosty, glacial expression (which, I suppose, is meant to make journalists rush to their keyboards and retract everything they’ve said.)  Not to mention all the continuous scolding, bizarre accusations and other out-of-control vitriol posted online or sent by private message, towards which one has to develop a pretty thick skin. 

Having said this, I can understand why so many members of the public automatically assume that all columnists and journalists have some kind of hidden agenda because they are in the pocket of either one party or other.  When you have the PN and the PL both owning influential media houses (incorporating TV, radio and newspapers) with journalists who are employed to write what is basically political propaganda, it is easy to see how Joe Citizen just takes it for granted that there is no such thing as independent journalism.  Politically owned media have been the biggest detriment of all towards attempts to have a truly unfettered press which acts like the Fourth Estate; a public watchdog whose first loyalty is not to the government of the day or a particular party, but (as corny as it may sound) to the greater good. 

Of course, it is also true that not all those who claim to be independent journalists are indeed independent. And by independent I mean objective and impartial, not someone who doesn’t have their own right-wing or left-wing beliefs (because at the end of the day, even journalists have to make up to their mind who to vote for).  So yes, there is a lot of spinning going on by those who purport to be after ‘the truth’.   Crucial bits and pieces of information are deliberately left out, details are twisted to take on a new meaning, unflattering photos are chosen for the most maximum damage, and two weights and two measures are the order of the day. 

And finally, yes, politicians and their sidekicks do reach out and try to cultivate good relationships with members of the press so that they can get as much “friendly media” coverage as possible. 

So I can see how it is sometimes difficult for the public to figure out who is writing out of conviction and who is doing it because they have a personal axe to grind, or because they are chummy chummy with someone high up.

The biggest challenge for members of the press to retain their credibility is to remain consistent and to constantly keep in mind what is best of the country, and not for what will boost or promote one’s favourite party. Because if their main concern is the latter, than they need to either go work with one of the political media houses, or simply be open about it and do PR for their favourite minister (or for the hopeful minister-in-waiting). 

The fact is that it is possible to agree with some things but not others, no matter who is in government. However, this kind of mindset throws some people into a tailspin of confusion because they prefer everyone to be boxed up in neat little pigeonholes, with a label conveniently stuck to their forehead, PN, PL, AD. It is the one thing about Malta which brings me the closest to hating it; this inability to set aside one’s political bias and simply spit it out and admit that an idea is completely but utterly wrong.  Instead, there are those who insist on clinging to fierce party loyalty and will be damned if they will give “the others” the satisfaction of providing them with ammunition to attack their party (“mela x’naghmel ma npaxxihomx lill-ohrajn”).  For as long as I can remember, anyone who has dared to speak up against the government of the day is considered “the enemy”, which also explains why so many people are so afraid to voice their opinion publicly. Strings are pulled, promotions are withheld and yes, even jobs are lost if you don’t get with the program.  

This is precisely the reason why Labour MP Marlene Farrugia is seen as an aberration and is being figuratively torn apart (in the same way that Franco Debono was). Whether she is doing it out of spite (as she is often accused of) because she was never given a ministerial post or out of genuine love for the environment, she has stuck her neck out and has openly disagreed with her own party, which is never an easy thing to do on this island. 

What is clear is that there is growing opposition against the Labour administration’s high-handed habit of handing out parcels of public land as if they were candy, to anyone with an open wallet. And for the first time, the opposition has not been initiated by the Opposition, but by ordinary people who have no political agenda but who simply care enough about the future of Malta to speak out.  And if it is hard for some to believe that there are those with no ulterior motives, than that says more about them, than it does about us.