Green leaders

People remain nameless for several reasons; one is that they ask me to keep them so, albeit they sign their letters.

And then there are those who, over the years, must have opened thousands of e-mail accounts in order to communicate with me, and no doubt, other columnists. They do this because they are too lily-livered to show their names, and/or because they have a personal agenda when they repeat rumours and gossip. I do not want to belong to any clique that these people ostensibly 'trust with these secrets' - if they really did, divulging their name to us would not matter.

One reason they do this is because many people send a gob of e-mail addresses when they send e-mails, and they would not want their identity divulged in this trite manner; so they change their addresses to (as they think) confuse people.

The missives I have received this week include a synopsis for a novella, a contender for the Pulitzer Prize. 'The foreigner and the producer are united against a common enemy; could they be having an affair?' Then there are statements like 'When the Labour Party is in government, there will be a tsunami, I tell you, and X and Y will be out of a job.'

Then there are those who tell me what I 'must' say in this column, on the premise that since they actually work in television and on radio, they know what is what, unlike 'others'. 'It is a pity you said that, because it shows you know less than nothing about television', was how Anon succinctly put it a couple of days ago. Since this is an opinion column, that is neither here nor there. I speak for the public, not for the service providers.

'You really ought to say that the acting in A is atrocious.' 'Why did you pick on B? She is such a beautiful person' (since when did beauty have anything to do with talent? Since when did fair comment constitute 'picking on' someone?). This, of course, does not take into consideration that the comment could have been written by the person herself, or a stalker, or anyone in between.

• For some time now, I have been wondering about how some children get picked to participate in television programmes, or even to be a part of the audience.

I have seen the rigorous process thorough which the esperti are chosen. But I have yet to see a call for applications for most other programmes involving children. Sometimes, of course, one recognises that the children are from the same town, or that they are children of friends, or that they attend the same school. This probably makes collating a list, and transporting children to and from studios, much easier.

At this point I always recall visions of the neon 'Applause' signs which light up when audience reaction is required. But it is clear that some children are more interested in the movements of the camermen, or in fidgeting with their clothes, than in the presenter himself. Sometimes, you only find one child in a whole group, who is focused on what is happening. The presenter tends to seize upon this and rewards him with attention - whether the behaviour is good... or bad.

• Whenever statistics regarding viewership or listenership are published, the number-crunching begins. Now let us imagine for one inspired moment, that a couple of entrepreneurs had tried the one-upmanship trick of offering to buy airtime on Magic. Let us further suppose that, as they say in the trade, 'the management reserved the right to refuse all offers, even the most - more, in this case - advantageous', because it would have lost editorial control.

The listenership of this station has sadly been drastically reduced. The advertisers, seeing the statistics, might feel the urge to go elsewhere. Selling the airtime would have netted the station (notwithstanding the aforementioned rider) a steady income. Catch 22?

• I am amused at the lobbying that is going on with reference to the forthcoming Vodafone Malta Television Awards - incidentally, after the judges put in a specific request, the Best Cameraman Award has been split into Best Scripted Camerawork and Best Unscripted Camerawork Awards.

What I cannot understand is the attitude of some people. Some personalities ask you outright for your vote, which is as it should be. Others, whom you would have known since they were a twinkle in their parents' eyes, ask you to become their 'fan'. Others, bitten by the bug of petty insularity, actually ask you whether their programme is better than its rival.

• The butchering of the language goes on. Every day, without fail, news bulletins are bound to include the word stqarr when there ought to be idikkjara used. The first word indicates admission of guilt, or a fault; the second is a mere declaration. I suppose the people who use it think that plain and simple qal would not do, and that it is more emphatic.

Different bus routes were recently described as modi differenti ta' rotot; this is what happens when presenters are not paying attention to what they are saying because they are trying to shuffle papers and answer the phone at the same time (and also because they do not have a good command of the language).

• The format of Kontra l-Ħin remains basically the same, this time around - two contestants, aided by a team of friends or high-profile guests, pit their wits against one another for four rounds. This season, however, will see them saving up money, rather than 'extra time'. This means that, theoretically at least, by the end of each programme the finalist has the opportunity to earn €5,000. But in order to find out through which loops he has to jump for this to happen, you will have to watch the programme itself.

television@timesofmalta.com