The Nationalist Party seems to want to find all possible excuses to attack Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat.

One of the latest was a report in the PN media that he did not attend the official dinner in honour of former President Eddie Fenech Adami, claiming he was on holiday in Sicily.

If Dr Muscat had programmed a holiday before he was invited, then he had every right not to attend. The official dinner was planned long before the invitations were sent, and in these circumstances it is normal practice to inform one’s guests before the invitations are officially mailed. And, anyway, Dr Muscat did send a representative – the PL did not boycott the event.

But the PN’s criticism goes beyond this triviality. Sometimes, it verges on being an attempt at character assassination, as was the case when, less than an hour after Dr Muscat finished his address during the PL mass meeting in Vittoriosa on the eve of Freedom Day, the PN issued a statement saying that Dr Muscat failed to address the issues that currently are of concern in the country.

It then goes on to list the topics on which Dr Muscat did not speak. But, one may ask, why should Dr Muscat speak on the issues that the PN want him to speak about? Freedom Day this year was a particular event since it was the 30th anniversary of the

departure of the British troops, and Dr Muscat chose to delve more into the past. Yet, he did speak about the future too, unlike what the PN said.

This particular PN statement leads us into another matter that exposes the Nationalist Party’s arrogant ways – that is, their trying to influence or, worse, their trying to manipulate the independent media.

The Malta Independent chose not to carry this particular PN statement, simply because of its lack of news worthiness, considering that it was repeating what the PN have been saying for weeks on end. The 31 March issue of this newspaper, instead, included the report of the PL mass meeting along with photos of the event, spread on three pages (although, in all, the amount of space taken up was more or less a page and a half, considering the adverts).

That same day, the editor of this newspaper received an email from Frank Psaila, PN information director, who expressed his disappointment that TMID had three whole pages about Labour’s mass meeting and complaining that the PN statement was not carried. He said it was not fair, and mentioned that this newspaper had, on the same day, also carried a number of statements that had been issued by the PL.

What did he expect? That TMID ignores Labour’s activity, in the same way that the PN and its media tried to ignore it? Or that statements issued by the PL, if worth reporting, are not carried? Or that any PN statement must be carried, irrespective of the news content?

What Mr Psaila did not say was that this newspaper reported Labour’s Freedom Day event in the same way as it always reports the Nationalist Party’s mass meeting to celebrate Independence Day. In this case, the PN organises a series of activities, including public dialogues, in the week preceding 21 September, and they are also covered by this newspaper. Throughout the year PN statements, and many others issued by the government, are also given their importance, if they are worth reporting.

A few days earlier, Mr Psaila had also phoned up the editor to comment about an editorial in which this newspaper criticised PN secretary general Paul Borg Olivier. No threats, veiled or otherwise, but implications that “Hey, we’re watching you. Be careful.”

To its credit, in the five years of this editorship, incidentally marked today, the Labour Party has never phoned up or sent emails similar to the ones mentioned above – and this in spite of the several times that this newspaper criticised the party’s policies or stands taken on particular issues.