Media guru Andrew Azzopardi has every reason to lament the current deterioration in the standard of political debate on both radio and television. At a time when the country is fast moving towards a general election, politicians on both sides of the House seem to find it more convenient to turn discussions into an unnecessarily heated exchange based on persistent interruptions, pompous gesticulations and an obvious determination to do everything except sticking to the programme theme and giving straightforward answers to straightforward questions.

There will be those who insist this is nothing new on the local political scene and they are more or less right. Those of us who have been in the media for the past 50 years know the signals only too well. Politicians know that whatever is going on in the social network, it is their performance in a given programme that will eventually hold sway even if, ironically, it is then shown again and reinterpreted all over that very same network, for the usual sanguine wisdom of hindsight views.

Radio and TV presenters, even the most experienced among them who think they've seen it and done it all, are never totally prepared for such rowdy and frustrating spectacles. While it is certainly not new, there is a telling twist to it - politicians today die a faster death. It is why they would rather talk about the moon when asked about the sun as it is so much easier to interrupt your political opponent rather than letting him or her effectively drive a point home. Sadder still, however, is when this becomes part of a party strategy, as seems to be the case with the Nationalist Opposition. Not that some government speakers have been too docile.

The inevitable re-emergence of this phenomenon, mixed and matched with today's trend for fake news and fake everything that is not according to one's own standpoint, is not restricted to Malta or Maltese politics, of course.

Anyone who found the time to watch the five top candidates in France's presidential election in their first televised debate last week cannot have missed how the two moderating hosts were unable to control the discussion (sic). They allowed candidates - the two favourites, independent centrist Emmanuel Macron and far-right Marine Le Pen, conservative Francois Fillon, socialist Benoit Hamon and far-left Jean-Luc Melenchon - to speak over each other and run well over time.

While this is hardly shocking to Maltese viewers and listeners, perhaps the only redeeming moment of this much-awaited French debate occurred when at one point, Macron joked while being attacked by Le Pen: "Hopefully I am here, you would be bored if I was not".

The same pattern of behaviour has been the talking point all over the United States post-presidential election. Pro and anti-Trump spokespersons have been embroiled in ugly radio and television confrontations, pushing usually neutral presenters into saying and doing things they could never have been taught at university media institutions. This "fake" business in the US has, alas, grown into an epidemic contaminating the rest of the media and political worlds.

But switching back to our minuscule scale of things, is it too much to ask of our politicians to keep it clean, to let viewers and listeners analyse and judge their opinions and proposals in a civil and tranquil broadcasting environment? Or is it much more convenient, at this moment in time, for some to relegate achievements and success to the trash can by concentrating on the trivial, the clichés and the empty pique...while your radio or TV host despairs?

* * *

All is fair in love and war?

The passing away of Martin McGuinness, former IRA commander turned peace-maker and Northern Ireland deputy first minister, inevitably brought the issue of Irish reunification back to the fore. It also provoked a fiery exchange between people who believed and still rightly believe in Irish republicanism and those whose loved ones were caught in the crossfire of the on-going battle over reunification.

That the era of violence and armed resistance was only brought to an end thanks to McGuinness' own acceptance of a major political deal to at least stifle the old passion was recognised by most, but there were still many others who just could not accept it. Perhaps the saddest comment to be uttered was that of former Thatcherite minister, Norman Tebbit, whose wife was left paralysed by the IRA's 1984 Brighton bombing, when he said: "I hope McGuinness is parked in a particularly hot and unpleasant corner of hell." He even went as far as to say that "the world is now a sweeter and cleaner place".

Of course, no one in the UK media mentioned the thousands of innocent Irish victims at the hands of British forces and armed Unionist groups. This is the sad reality of war, whether declared or not. Wars are not just those which are jingoistically announced by elected presidents and prime ministers or dictators, but revolution and armed struggles by freedom fighters are also wars to which the unjustified adage "all is fair in love and war" is often applied.

McGuinness' demise brought to mind the many discussions I used to have years ago as a young reporter with Irish author Sean O'Callaghan, then a retired journalist, when he lived on the island. O'Callaghan, who was a member of both the IRA and later the Irish National Army in which he served as an officer throughout World War II, was always adamant on how cruel and unnecessary the whole Irish situation was, but that it was also inevitable. Two years before his passing away in 2000, however, I am sure he was for the Good Friday agreement that more or less brought peace to Northern Ireland.

The same can be said of Martin McGuinness. He fought when the fighting was needed, he worked for peace when peace, if not reunification, was within reach.

* * *

Where the girls are

While here in Malta we are rightly celebrating the fact that more and more women are entering the labour market thanks to the provision of free childcare centres and other services together with equal opportunities and conditions, there are still places on earth, particularly those with an Islamic majority, where the female species is not exactly glorified.

Gender diversity is unheard of in such places as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and even the Emirates, but they often seek to portray a different image, to the amusement of many in the media. One such situation occurred recently when it was pointed out that while Saudi Arabia may have had the best of intentions for what was an inaugural Girls' Council meeting, the published photograph of the event showed there was one vital element missing from it - actual women!

The council is chaired by Princess Abir bint Salman, wife of Prince Faisal bin Mishaal bin Saud, but she was nowhere to be seen in the photograph. Before you smile it all away, it should be said that the girls were not entirely banned from the council; they were kindly allowed to watch the meeting via a video feed from a separate room.