Back in the days when Labour’s Manuel Cuschieri was always on the airwaves, those Nationalists who submitted themselves to the ordeal of listening to his programme, instead of tuning in to some uplifting music, made much of the vituperative nature of his remarks.
Nationalist exponents are setting up hate blogs which spew out a stream of scurrilous rumours, half-truths, and distortions- Claire Bonello
He was described as a bile-merchant and a person who propagated political division.
Cuschieri’s rants to the party faithful may have been successful in fostering a sense of unity within the Labour camp as the grass roots felt they had to stand firm together against the forces of the evil Nationalists.
However, the constant stream of negativity and invective did not do much to enhance Labour’s image to more moderate Labour voters, floating voters, or even disenchanted Nationalist voters.
It reinforced the idea that the Labour Party was willing to resort to violence (psychological violence as opposed to physical violence) to ram home its message.
The Nationalist exponents mentioned in Cuschieri’s programmes assumed the role of victim-martyrs and acted as if they were the subject of a full-blown persecution campaign, instead of one man and a mike.
The fact that the message being conveyed by Cuschieri was predominantly a critical and dismal one also contributed to Labour’s wet blanket image – one of a party which had to rely on attacking its opponents instead of putting forward any suggestions of its own.
At some point, the Labour administration – or maybe Cuschieri himself – figured out that a new approach was called for, and he assumed other responsibilities within the Labour Party structure.
Considering the outraged bleating of the Nationalists who felt maligned by Cuschieri, you would have thought that the last thing they would do is emulate him. If they were so shocked at his antics, the Nationalists could hardly be expected to dive off the moral high ground into the filthy gutter where they fling mud at their opponents, could they?
Sadly enough for the state of political discourse in the country, that’s exactly what some Nationalist exponents have been doing. We have seen the setting up of hate blogs which spew out a stream of scurrilous rumours, half-truths, and distortions.
The right to freedom of expression is being used as an excuse to denigrate political opponents and to attack relatives of public figures who are being dragged into the arena solely by virtue of their relationship with the public figures themselves.
While Cuschieri’s radio programmes had anonymous callers phoning in and hinting at all sorts of scurrilous rumours about the Nationalists, the blogs set up by the PN propaganda people have anonymous commenters or those hiding behind a pseudonym, and spitting out all sorts of scurrilous rumours about anyone who isn’t a Nationalist lackey, online.
The latest person to follow in the Cuschieri tradition is Lou Bondi.
The Where’s Everybody presenter has set up a blog, where he writes the occasional post about his rock sorties (he strummed a guitar at Rockestra) and pretty much an anti-PL tirade very day.
Now while Bondi criticises Cuschieri for perpetuating a two- tribe mentality and a spiteful political religion, his own writings are not that far removed from the type of comments Cuschieri would utter on air. Bondi’s contempt is reserved exclusively for those coming from the Labour camp and those who are not viewed kindly by the Gonzi coterie.
He resorts to name-calling, personal insults, and inaccuracies. Even the actions of people of integrity like Carmen Sammut are distorted by Bondi’s lens.
Despite the fact that Bondi has become the Nationalist version of Cuschieri, he expects to be considered as an investigative journalist with some credibility and the producer of a current affairs programme instead of a PN pompom boy.
He is entitled to his delusions, of course. Still, his evident bias against all things Labour reminds me of an observation someone had written some time ago and which I had jotted down in my notebook.
It read: “Political Rottweilers are not the stuff of which good television hosts are made.
“They are not even the stuff of which good television interviewers are made, because they wear their allegiances and grudges like a cloak, no matter how hard they try to convince us this is not the case.”
It’s a very apt observation and one which explains why certain requirements should be followed by producers of news and current affairs programmes.
These standards were published in the Government Gazette in 2008 and should be adhered to by those presenters and reporters primarily associated with the public service broadcaster (such as Bondi with a now twice weekly programme).
Clause 19 of these standards states that such people “must be seen to be impartial. It is important that no off-air activity, including writing, the giving of interviews or the making of speeches, leads to any doubt about their objectivity on-air. If such presenters or reporters publicly express personal views off-air on controversial issues, then their on-air role may be severely compromised.
“It is crucial that in both their work with the public service broadcaster and in other non-public service broadcasting activities such as writing, speaking or giving interviews, they do not state how they vote or express support for any political party or express views for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate.”
Whether you log on to Bondi’s blog every day to get your anti-Labour fix, or you can’t bear the sight of the man, you have to agree that this standard is not being adhered to, and that he is definitely not impartial, or considered as such.
The real question at issue is whether the Broadcasting Authority is going to allow this flagrant disregard of standards.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt