Last Friday, Christians around the world and in Malta were in a pensive mood as the aura of the day necessitated reflection.  Christians commemorated the events of the day with a dose of faith, an amount of solemnity, a measure of folklore and a degree of culture.  On Good Friday, the Son of God was arrested, tried, flogged and later crucified. In a number of localities around the islands, processions of the passion of Jesus were held.  The narrative account of the passion of Jesus was read in a number of churches.  Jesus went through a humiliating death until, on the third day, He rose again in accordance with the Scriptures. 

With the sombre scene set, last Friday Xarabank producers returned on our television screens and worked tirelessly. Peppi Azzopardi, anchor host of the program, made repeated passionate appeals to the widest audience of the show to contribute financially towards those who, for ill health reasons, are going through a difficult period.  Peppi was assisted by other modes of persuasion, including narratives, video clips and other testimonials of sad and agonising experiences.

Though many viewers and followers would rate the program as a success and worth the effort, I urge you to look at the initiative from a different perspective.  An expression of solidarity on Good Friday was the programme’s backdrop.  There should be no doubt on the influence that the media exerts on people. 

Media of all sorts are important means for society to both convey and receive messages.  What becomes unethical is when the media portray doctored messages, fail to look for the real causes and acquiesces the superficial, becoming sensational playing on people’s emotions.  

Last Friday’s Xarabank was, in my opinion, a case in point.  I believe that it is not fair for heartbroken parents to be subjected to make public their traumas and sufferings. Under pressure and short of tangible assistance, people in difficult situations are easy prey for media producers.  Increasing viewership should not, in any way, be tied closely or even vaguely to people suffering from the ills of life. 

I find this approach rather unethical.  I do not believe that our society has stooped so low that the troubles of others are entertainment to the rest. Nor do I think that donations have now become tightly knitted with the level of sufferings of others. I must say that, in my vocabulary, solidarity has a different meaning.  

While there is no doubt that Malta enjoys one of the best social security safety nets, revisions are now necessary to better reflect the needs of today’s society.   Regrettably, due to the very rigid and at times inhumane regulations, people still fall through the net and are hit hard with huge emotional and financial impacts. Our social security safety net does not provide for such traumas and on many occasions people rely completely on donations. On these occasions, the State fails to recognise the hardship that these people endure. I am taking the risk of repeating what I have penned earlier: people should not be subjected to further hardship in exchange for donations.

I dread to think what it would be like for people going through difficult situations in life without the valuable input of the many voluntary organisations. In the absence of the esteemed volunteers in various voluntary organisations, people in dire situations would be left on their own to struggle with their daily battles to support their loved ones.  However, notwithstanding the valuable and untiring work of these organisations, I am certain that our society can do better.

President Emeritus George Abela was correct when he put an end to the gifts in exchange for donations scheme; perhaps President Marie-Louise ColeiroPreca, no newcomer to social issues, will take this issue further. Maybe the time is right to take it a notch higher.  The social security safety net should provide either cash or kind for such unfortunate occurrences.  This is not to say that money collection and donations should not be made in aide of other causes, but cases where people suffering from ill-health are involved should not be left to the will of generous donors.  

The reported sum of €75,000 raised in aid of the Puttinu Cares cancer support group during the Good Friday night walk, which this year was the largest ever, is without a shadow of doubt laudable.  The participants not only paid a contribution but took it upon themselves to walk for hours and actively show solidarity with those in need, all without any media hype or hysteria.  On the other hand, a bounty of €522,000 were collected in the three hours of live TV broadcast, still for the same good cause, but somehow simulated.  The appeals were heartfelt and the suffering real, no doubt; however the exposure of children by the programme’s producers, though maybe perceived as good television, leaves a bad taste.  

Boys and girls in need of medical attention should be assisted in cash and/or in kind from the national coffers.  It is a bad enough experience for the children hit by such a cruel disease, but then subjecting them and their parents to this sort of charade is simply not acceptable to me.

[email protected]