 |
| You talkin' to me |
Caruana Galizia also wrote that Joseph Muscat went to a party thrown by Sandro Chetcuti, a man who is in court for causing grievous bodily harm and attempting to murder GRTU's Vince Farrugia. Before this incident, Chetcuti orbited around Labour's Business Forum and made it his calling to introduce his leader to businessmen.
If you don't see how Joseph Muscat as a potential prime minister violated a couple of cardinal rules governing correct ethical political behaviour, I gently recommend that you stop reading. And if you are not taken aback by Joseph Muscat's utter lack of judgement in not seeing this, you are permanently banned from reading this blog. But this is not my point today.
Quite simply, I do not understand why none of the media picked up these two Daphne Caruana Galizia groundbreaking stories. Forget the Labour media which didn't for obvious reasons. Forget the PN media which are permanently sleepwalking. Forget MaltaToday which is not a newspaper but a public vehicle for private envy. But what about The Times, the Independent, PBS?
Do these two stories about a potential prime minister merit journalistic attention? Undoubtedly. Was Caruana Galizia lying? No. Joseph Muscat did not deny a single word. At a minimum, shouldn't the so-called independent media have contacted Muscat to ask a few questions? Definitely.
So why did none of this happen? Why did journalists who claim to be independent stay away from these stories, deliberately hiding facts uncovered by a colleague? In any other European country, by contrast, they would have helped to make them viral in minutes.
On one level, the problem is rooted in a grossly misplaced sense of professional pride. If it's not my story, it does not exist. No matter how important and irrefutable the facts, I shall ignore them because I did not get to them first. There is also a sprinkling of professional jealousy. How could I, a full-time journalist working for a serious medium, follow the path opened up by this soft-spoken woman who blogs for fun in her spare time.
Another root feeding this local media perversion is a sense of prudishness turned on it's head. If Daphne Caruana Galizia uncovers something unpleasant about a public figure, then the so-called independent journalist sees it as his or her duty to censor her rather than the public figure.
DCG is mostly treated as a pariah by her media colleagues because she refuses to embrace a current fad they are besotted with. There was a time when facts and logic were the only two pillars good journalists would build a story on. That is no more. The cool self-appointed independent journalist today remains equidistant from both parties at all costs, even if it means hiding facts and ignoring logic.
But there's a problem with this fad. These journalists know that Joseph Muscat's PL is still nothing to write home about. Privately, they confess that he is not up to the job. So in order to appear 'balanced' they are permanently under duress to inflate the government's shortcomings and downplay its achievements. At the same time, they do the opposite with respect to Joseph Muscat's PL. And in both cases they don't allow facts and logic to get in the way of their coolness.
Daphne Caruana Galizia does not play this game and deep down these 'balanced' journalists know that she is right. That is why they drool over her blog in private but are scared of saying so in public.
14 comments:
The way you write,seems you are scared of her, as well
Those of us who read DCG'c notebook even occasionally, have been asking these questions about other local so-called journalists for a long time Lou. In a still largely male-dominated industry, Daphne is blessed with a set of male 'appendages' twice the size of those of any of her counterparts, and she knows exactly how to use them (coupled with, not a small dose, of intelligence, intellect and simple common sense).
I find your last 2 paragraphs the most interesting here Lou. You yourself obviously have considerable insider insight into local journalism, and what you have said here confirms what I've thought for ages now.
'Kijpittupp Defni! Prosit tal-program!'
Let me tell you why they do not pick up on her stories.
It's because to people who aren't biased one way or the other Caruana Galizia gives the impression that she has a personal agenda.
For example the simple fact that she attacks anything that's associated with labour - sometimes quite viciously all day long, all year long, doesn't quite help her be perceived as being independent.
In the same way she tackles the Nationalists with kid gloves. And don't say that to be 'normal' you have to be Nationalist and if you vote Labour you're stupid like she does. It just doesn't hold water - there are good and bad people on both sides (party supporters I mean) and intelligent and idiotic people on both sides too. But Mrs Caruana Galizia only shows the bad side of Labour. This of course undermines her credibility greatly.
Another problem with Mrs Caruana Galizia's blog is that it tends to be too personalised, I mean would the Times bring a story about Ronnie Pellegrini's facebook or Nikita Alamango's behind? She's seen as a maverick precisely because she goes into these nitty gritty personal things which in reality Joe citizen doesn't give a toss about.
You might argue that she has a massive following. Of course, in the same way that the News of the World had. As a seasoned media man Lou, you know that gossip is the ultimate magnet for readership. People are fascinated to know all that insider stuff - but that doesn't mean that what she does is morally right or that people agree with her or that newspapers like the Times should adopt a similar role.
Its basically the same about Muscat and Scerri Herrera. Here Caruana Galizia could be perceived to have a grudge against both hence the personal crusade. And thats why these newspapers could be keeping away from the story.
And the reason why Muscat hasn't answered on her claims? Well if you haven't noticed the Labour party (as a party of course I'm not talking about individuals) ignore her posts and never answer her regardless of how outrageous they are. Mrs Caruana Galizia has made numerous allegations/accusations against Muscat in the past years but he never comments - I guess they believe that taking her seriously would give her more publicity...
@ Anonymous - you missed the central point. I did not write about the interpretation and colour that DCG gives to the facts she reveals but to the facts themselves. To journalists and even more so to politicians, facts should be sacred and independent of those who reveal them. I also added that if a journalist has doubts about the veracity of a story that DCG reveals, s/he still has the obligation to investigate it. Particularly, if the person in question, in this case Joseph Muscat, does not deny it.
Maybe the reason is simpler: why send traffic to a competitor? It's like the NYT linking to a blog post on the HuffPo or Drudge.
@ Anonymous - regarding DCG's treatment of either Labour or Nationalist figures or issues, you are quite mistaken in your view that she only treats the PN 'with kid gloves'. In fact she has been highly critical of PN members from back-benchers to Ministers, all the way up to Dr. Gonzi himself on various issues.
She is also very up-front about why she feels that she just cannot vote Labour, even if it were to come down to supporting the PN as 'the lesser of two evils' so to speak. As she maintains, at present, they are just 'not fit for purpose', neither on opposition nor in government - which is a VERY poor show in a country dominated by two political parties.
Regarding any Labour response to DCG's writings, she has had or still has (I stand to be corrected) a number of cases brought against her by labour people. Sometimes her comments are very sharp, however I am 100% sure that should the allegations highlighted by Lou here, as only two examples from many, have been untrue at all, then Dr. Muscat would DEFINITELY have had a libel case slapped on Daphne's desk the very next morning.
@Lou I didn't miss the central point as in I was commenting about WHY I believe journalists tend not to follow up her stories and not whether this is justifiable or not. Personally I think that YES if it is something that is relevant or important it should be followed up.
But I think (and this is just my personal opinion of course) she's often viewed as pariah by fellow journos and she tends to self defeat the investigative part of her blog with often useles personal details like a person's height, or the size of their bottom, or who they've been kissing or shagging. And I think certain journalists feel that if they do follow up on her stories they fear they could be associated with this type of thing.
@Neil Dent
She is highly critical with back benchers because they are, metaphorically speaking, spokes in Lawrence Gonzi's wheels - in the same way that Labour could be perceived to be. If they had towed the party line you wouldn't have read anything about them.
Also you missed what I wrote when I said that 'officially' the party has no reaction. Individual people like Anglu Farrugia and Julia Farrugia have instituted libel cases in a personal capacity (Anglu Farrugia's was done years ago before she started writing on the blog btw) so yes I stand by what I said - Neither Muscat nor the party officially react to her writings and basically ignore them (I don't know what they do in private of course).
When Daphne homes in on a ‘victim’ , it will be a vicious attack . At times she puts aside facts which are contrary to the agenda she’s pushing and other times she ridicules her victims on their appearance. This attitude leaves other journalists in a dilemma “are we going to ask Joseph such questions when we know that DCG even criticizes him on his height and hairstyle?”
The other point which I’d like to state is that she criticizes the paper which is directly her competition; The Times.
Take the case of Manu , she built up her story on an assumption that The Times did not know that Mr Cini was a porn actor. People like me noted that his ‘job’ had nothing to do with his hunger strike , she wanted to be sensational.
Take any case involving priests , religion or the Church, she comes out all to ridicule such things.
Lou,in the St Joseph home case why is it that certain parts of the court ruling are not being published by ALL the media:
1)John Debattista’s witness has been put aside , I happen to know this street wise person and he’s the type who calls a spade a spade, no beating round the bush.
2) The fact that Lawrence Grech is seen on video with his family at that Marfa place while some small naked boy is being ridiculed and bullied.
From what I can see and judge from this case is that the mentally frail and depressed Carmelo Pulis should have never been left alone dealing with this gang of boys with nearly criminal behavior. He should be liberated on appeal.
I will be popping in your good blog in the future. Prosit.
I agree totally with Anonymous - and he did not miss the point - facts mixed up with personal attacks diminish their power and weaken the message - hence the lack of response and therefore credibility. If DCG stuck to facts and facts alone - she would be a much more powerful “journalist” - but as she has said herself on many an occasion - her blog is pure entertainment and she is for the most part preaching to the converted. With all of her personal attacks and childish insults on anything or anyone associated to the Pl being ignorant, stupid, uneducated, and much more – it is becoming rather tiresome and repetitive. Nothing seems fresh. Rather than rising above the fray and reporting on facts she continuously brings herself and her followers down (and often even lower)to the same level of the people she attacks. When you have this mess in the middle of some facts - the facts are usually lost in translation - because the rest is more entertaining. The irony of course is that her supposed “threat” to the PL continues to be diminished firstly because of her childish and inane insults which continue to weaken the thrust of her main message (is that her message? – or is she just having some spiteful childish fun – but finding some “factual” snippets to maintain some credibility) and secondly because the large majority of her audience totally agree with her and her approach. On another matter – she is not a journalist – she is a commentator. Anyone can be a commentator – and there is nothing worse than a commentator with a hate filled personal agenda. An agenda topped up with a generous sprinkling of noblesse oblige hatred of anything or anyone working class. This shouts out at you with everything she writes. I think that other journalists are not scared of her at all – rather they are more than likely just tired and have stopped reading. I have never met or heard DCG speak – so if your description of her being softly spoken is a physical one I am unable to comment. If however, you allude to her being softly spoken in her messaging on her blog you are obviously mistaken - unless you refer only to her occasional weak and mute criticsim of the PN.
Someone signing "Mario P" sent this comment. My response is in caps.
"I remember a time when your company used to put Sandro 'the murderer' on a pedestal. But by gosh, that was when he was saying he once was a Labourite who had turned PN. He was not a 'turncoat' or a murderer back then. SANDRO CHETCUTI WAS NEVER INVITED ON BONDIPLUS ALTHOUGH HE BADGERED ME REGULARLY TO PUT HIM ON. But now he is back to Labour and back to being a murderer. But, like Cyrus, Marisa Micallef and others, they are now on the wrong sideon the fence - so bash them. MORE CRAP! I PRAISED CYRUS ENGERER FOR RESIGNING FROM THE PN ON THE DIVORCE ISSUE. IT WAS WHEN THE OTHER STUFF STARTED COMING OUT THAT I CRITISED HIM. YOU WANTED ME TO CONTINUE APPLAUDING HIM AFTER IT TRANSPIRED THAT HE CIRCULATED PORNO-PICS OF HIS EX-BOYFRIEND? WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR VALUES FROM, THE SEWAGE? NOW ABOUT MARISA MICALLEF: I NEVER THOUGHT MUCH OF HER WHEN SHE WAS IN THE PN. MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOUR MEMORY SEEMS TO BE FADING. SHE LEFT THE PN WHEN SHE WASNT GIVEN A JOB SHE WANTED. WHAT IS MORE INTERESTING IS WHAT HAPPENED TO MARISA SINCE SHE JOINED LABOUR. I HAVE NO IDEA. DO YOU. Your credibility Lou, is down below zero. I NEVER JUDGE MYSELF. BUT LET US JUST SAY THAT I WILL NOT CHANGE CAREERS AFTER YOUR COMMENT.
To me it seems elementary why the so called 'journalists' are afraid of her. It is only because she is a real journalist and they are 'fake' - the sort of self-made journalists. It is quite logical that when one is a fake - one is afraid of the 'real thing'.
The reason is simple, journalists are scared of her because she is NOT a journalist, doesn't abide by any moral or journalistic values, and yet, Ms.Galizia is treated on somewhat the same level of journalists just because she spends hours of end writing... Writing what most of the time can be classified as 'crap'
Can't be as bad as Fenech Adami and Zeppi l-hafi, can it?
DCG is just an eccentric person with an overblown ego and an obsession with Labour. She hates Labour with a passion and associates anything negative, such as obnoxious Maltese traits, with its supporters.
She cannot be taken seriously as a journalist; she's just too biased. So biased in fact that she makes MediaLink journalists look impartial comparatively.
But she's also a very intelligent person and a talented writer; and this combination yields an extremely entertaining source.
Much like Norman Lowell, she makes me laugh my ass off at times.
Post a Comment