There is an eerie atmosphere, rather than a kind of hush, in the current political situation on this blob of land. That we take our politics too seriously has long been admitted and confirmed throughout the centuries by many, from colonial governors, prime ministers and presidents, to popes, cardinals, bishops and dictators to both our north and south. It does not really surprise me, having been more or less close to all that has been happening since my first days in journalism almost 50 years ago.
That a party in Opposition should feel bitter is a no brainer. No one enjoys losing power, even if it automatically brings with it a new spirit of rejuvenation, as it also triggers the inevitable process of cyclic change within. The years in Opposition are often grudgingly spent in contemplation, in trying to keep up the hard core’s morale and in seeking ways and means of catching the party in government on the wrong foot through strict monitoring.
Labour people know only too well what that means. They spent 25 years in Opposition, minus the two-year hiccup of the Alfred Sant Administration (1996-1998), during which period they had to witness leadership changes, major policy shifts and a sometimes painful end to long-held traditions and customs. The Nationalists had to endure that same process for 17 long years during the 70s and 80s. Even earlier, the Labour Party went through it in the 50s that were marked by the unequivocal emergence of Dom Mintoff.
So nothing is new under the sun even in politics. It is when the enveloping bitterness turns to unnecessarily drastic, melodramatic action that one feels it is time to carry out a reality check. The wise men and women the nation appoints to be above everyday politics have already and rightly taken to making sure the mercury remains at a safe level, more so after the sad and silly events that occurred in front of the Law Courts a couple of weeks ago over a run-of-the-mill libel case, the like of which our justice system has had to put up with so often, and without much theatrics, for many a decade.
The whole episode reminded me of a similar scene, way back in the late 80s, when a group of Zejtun men were taken to court on various charges, only for the occasion to be turned into a veritable farce as Labourites swarmed into the Valletta streets in their defence. It was everyone’s hope, at least those of genuine goodwill that such ludicrous incidents would no longer need to re-occur as we slowly matured politically as one nation. Almost 20 years into the 21st century, however, here we are again, having to watch such pathetic scenes that sadly, yes, do quite turn the clock back.
It is obvious that when an Opposition is caught at a moment in time when everything is going well and certainly better for the nation, from the economy, employment and foreign investment to tourism, infrastructure, social benefits, health services and the general well-being of our citizens, as well as foreigners finding solace among us (Central Bank estimates show these are annually pumping €100 million into the national coffers), it has to find other outlets by way of retaining both its self-esteem and credibility.
The problem over the last few months is there has just been too much bitterness creeping in and, in the case of Malta, which can quickly seep into the very fibre of society, into family and friend networks and the overall social ambience of these islands. It sows the seeds of instability at a time when stability has actually been a catchword in the current economic revival that Malta and Gozo have been experiencing for the past three years.
***
Foreign media today
Today, the foreign media in the traditional sense has lost much of its clout as a result of the technological revolution. The credibility factor now descends heavily on them as people have become savvy thanks to the social media that provide instant debate and dissemination. Information is no longer the monopoly of a few correspondents planted in strategic places. “Our Man in Moscow” and other capitals is a fast-fading image of the past, as many present-day radio and TV on-the-spot reporters have found, much to their chagrin. No matter how dramatic the background and how “exclusive” they are purported to be, they are often talking about people, places and situations everybody is already aware of via mobile phone, the i-Pad and home PC.
So for the EU Observer to come out screaming imaginary things on the Malta situation after the Panama Papers were released is just a hapless display of either journalistic ineptitude on their part or a lack of willingness to check the real facts as every beginner in the profession would first seek to do.
I have worked for foreign media outlets in the past and I was always conscious of the professional differences that distinguished one from the other. I have written stuff for UK newspapers which, at a certain time during the protracted negotiations over the British military base in the 70s, would eagerly gobble up any negative piece about Malta, but would not want to even consider a story of some Maltese success. I have also been asked to write for newspapers and magazines that were seriously interested in what was happening in Malta and the whole Central Mediterranean, particularly with reference to developments in Libya.
At one awkward moment I was covering Libya for a UK news magazine while I had just contributed some word-mongering to Libyan information services, and on another occasion I was the acknowledged Malta correspondent of The European newspaper when I was already determined to vote “no” in a future accession referendum! I wrote for whoever wanted me to write.
The moral of the story? It just goes to show that dealing with foreign media is a funny business, sometimes hilarious, sometimes sad, very often both. Real-time journalism and technology have rendered the whole profession even more helplessly open to fake conclusions and absurd assumptions.
***
Take this Turk...
Take this Turk as another example. The issue of journalism and press freedom took a more bizarre twist last week with the story of a Turkish reporter who suddenly decided to take on the whole German news empire.
The man from Turkey’s “A Haber” media group was speaking out on air against German state broadcaster ZDF, calling a representative of the channel – who happened to be nearby during the Turk’s on-the-spot report – “insulting” and “rude” for keeping his hands in his pockets.
It seems that the Turkish journalist had been refused access to film on the station’s premises, reportedly for having failed to get a permit, and apparently decided to make a report outside the ZDF headquarters.
Pointing to the unsuspecting man (who turned out to be the German channel's spokesman Alexander Stock) and his gestures, the frustrated journalist emotionally reported: “Look, he is holding his hands in his pockets! He is speaking as if he wants to offend us. He is trembling with anger. Look how a ZDF representative is treating a guest!”
With a dramatic piece of music added to the report, he went on to criticize Germany's press freedom. “ZDF insults and abuses Turkey, our president, our nation with most absurd things and [he] is standing here in front of us in the rudest manner,” he told his viewers.
This happened on the same day that the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan had submitted a criminal complaint against a German comedian TV host over a satirical poem about him.
Would Castille consider sending a poem to the EU Observer?