Lots of crocodile tears have been shed about the draft new law on media.

For quite a while, it was clear that the existing legislation needed to be amended, especially due to the emergent and by now well entrenched social media. Not just here but in other European countries as well, it is proving difficult to find the right balance between freedom and licence when laying out just and democratic regulations. Till some acceptable position is reached, one must get successive drafts published; listen to the criticism they attract; decide which of the latter makes sense, which gets a prize for puerility; assemble new proposals; and go on in this manner till an appropriate line is established.

What I find has been interesting in this process is how people whom I remember as docile and prudent in their pronouncements about similar topics under a Nationalist government, are now quite loquacious when running down what the Labour government is seeking to carry out. Meanwhile, the same people... or friends with the same chip on their shoulder, are quick to complain about the “dictatorial” tendencies of the current administration.

Here too, hypocrisy is king, or queen?

***

Southern Europeans

In the debate that has been opened about the future of Europe, southern Europe has vital interests that need to be vigorously defended.

It is true that a majority of the peoples of the south continued to back the decisions taken over the years towards ever closer union in Europe, not least in the euro zone. This happened even though the austerity measures that were implemented in the south caused great hardship.

However, we are approaching a situation  – or perhaps in fact we’re already there – where given many of the proposals being made for the development of Europe, the south is being loaded with permanent burdens.

One hardly needs to be a sage or a hero in opining that southern Europeans need action to counter this problem.

***

Terrorism...

Nobody doubts that we will continue to experience terrorist activities in coming years; they might even get bolder. The latest attack in London (or the latest while this was being written) showed yet again how terrorism has retooled to become “artisanal” in scope.

Yet its impact has not become less effective; the contrary could be the case. With less resources, less planning and prior preparation, it is succeeding to achieve important results, certainly with public opinion.

One response to this could be to blank artisanal terrorism out of the media. Instead, project its operations as the doings of mad men.

A problem with this approach is that it ends up transmitting false messages. I wonder to what extent that can work effectively in a democracy, even if it is done in order to combat terrorism. Worse, perhaps: before carrying out their “artisanal” attack, terrrorists might easily find how to deliver a message regarding what their goals are.

Their version of events would still reach the public, to the discredit of official means of communication. The public would begin to trust the latter less and less.When the authorities need the public’s cooperation in the hunt for terrorists, it would not be available.