Whose life is it?

Public life is not easy but once we make this choice it is a natural consequence that our own lives, past, present and future, are put under the close scrutiny of the public, especially through its extended eyes and ears - the media. In the world of politics we find that our past is dug up and our present monitored, to see what we did, said, did not do, did not say...

Anything can be interpreted, with a gentle spin, and used. Therefore, photos, speeches, reports are all diligently filed away for future reference. Fair enough! The entry into public life is a conscious and free choice and the public expects, demands and has the right to have public figures as clean as driven snow.

What is not fair is when this is extended beyond the behaviour and actions of the person in public life to anybody who is or was in any way sometime connected or just in contact with the public person.

Only recently we were subjected to interminable lengthy press reports on why the pregnancy of the daughter of John McCain's running mate should not be used in the campaign. So why all the reports? Isn't it hypocritical to talk about a subject ad nauseam while saying it should not be talked about? It's unfair to use it politically against Sarah Palin but even more so against her daughter who, while going through a situation like thousands others have, was suddenly the focus of world attention just because her mother is running for Vice-President. Who would have cared otherwise outside of her own family and friends?

In Malta we are not immune to the phenomenon of trying to get at the public figure, if not directly then through what we call in billiards a cannon, the karambola, that is, through someone else. The question is whether any politician, or anybody else in public life for that matter, should be held accountable or even answerable for the actions of people who are family, friends or even acquaintances, when the same actions were not carried out by, condoned or even brought to the awareness of the person in the public eye.

Shakespeare wrote about the evil that men do living on after them but made no reference to the evil made by their relatives and friends. Just like in the Palin example, it is extremely unfair on the public person when this happens but also gives a weighted dimension to the perception of the transgression vis-à-vis the transgressor. Let's use a fictional example to illustrate this point.

Should a cousin of mine get a parking ticket and in the process is rude to the warden, an incorrect but not uncommon occurrence I'm sure, would it be relevant to carry a headline saying PN President's Cousin Insults Warden? Would it be fair to drag me into the story, first of all, myself having had nothing to do with it and, on the other hand, would it be fair on my cousin to inflate his transgression solely on the basis of him being related to me?

To continue with the Shakespearean reference, what about the good that my relative could do? Would it make the news in the same way if another cousin of mine carries out some noble act? Would the headlines boldly state that PN President's Cousin Rescues Cat From Tree?

Journalists wield great power and with such power should come the responsibility based on ethics.

What makes the above situation even more bizarre is when certain professions, occupations or vocations are protected beyond what is reasonably expected.

I will again use parallels to avoid entering into specifics, even though I am sure that most readers will understand perfectly what I am referring to.

If I commit some sort of transgression and am accused in open court, the press would be allowed to have a free hand in publishing what a lawyer, and the PN president to boot, did.

There would be no court order prohibiting the publication of my name, my profession or my political position in order to protect the reputation of all lawyers or all members of the political class. The media would have a field day and rightly so too. Public life is my choice and with it comes the increased public scrutiny.

What is downright ridiculous and hypocritical is when this is not practised across the board for all professions.

A case of a policeman accused of breaking the law will definitely make headlines, free of all court injunctions, so why should a member of the clergy enjoy the privileges of having his case heard in camera?

I will not discuss this any further but am simply throwing the matter up for readers' thought and discussion. Should our courts, supposedly ruled by a blind Lady Justice who makes no distinctions, have different sets of rules depending on the identity and profession of the accused?

A final thought based on my past experience when publishing my thoughts and opinions. I have written this piece in my personal capacity, so please take in the reasoning and the argumentation on its own merits and not as a statement from the president of the PN.

This applies also in the case of this article itself. Do not allow the validity of the arguments be weakened or strengthened by the source. Listen to the song and, for a moment, ignore the singer.