It is indeed a pity that standards are going down in various aspects of the media situation in Malta. As a regular contributor to this prestigious newspaper for well over a decade and a presenter of a political discussion programme on a political party radio station, I feel disappointed when I see the poor quality of much that is produced in the local media.

Let me start with the language aspect. This newspaper is one of the few exceptions where the standard of English has not dropped. I am sometimes appalled by the mistakes in the output of the online versions of certain newspapers.

Whatever happened to proofreading? How is it possible that certain editors publish material that contains glaring linguistic errors that would make a secondary school student blush?

Turning to radio, I fail to see why certain presenters have to engage in what I can only describe as infantile talk to try and amuse their listeners.

I like to switch on my car radio when driving to and from work and I have to state that I am sick and tired of the artificiality of certain presenters.

The advent of Facebook has highlighted all that is negative in the Maltese character

Is it possible that the idea which some presenters’ have of friendly banter boils down to talk that one would expect to hear only in the lower classes of a primary school?

The problem of the quality of public discourse in the media becomes much more serious when we consider matters of national importance.

Take politics as the prime example. Why have we descended to the level of discussing matters of national importance on a Friday night talkshow on television where the atmosphere is always one resembling fishwives arguing at the local market?

Also, and, in my opinion, much more serious, is why do we continue to further restrict the pool of opinionists who present their views on aspects of politics in Malta.

There are many educated people in our country who have a lot to contribute to the analysis of the political scene, yet, time after time, we are regularly regaled with the opinions of the same individuals.

Some ‘opinionists’ get so much media overexposure that one can comfortably predict what a particular person is going to say over a particular issue. This is something very negative because it means we are restricting political discourse and that we are always being presented with the same ideas by the same people.

Then, of course, there is the social media.

The advent of Facebook has highlighted all that is negative in the Maltese character.

The nonsense that one finds in posts on Facebook far surpasses all the negative output in other forms of media. For instance, I find it almost unbelievable that some prominent politicians can write anything on Facebook, even the utmost nonsense, and immediately people start posting their likes. I have often seen the most nonsensical posts with hundreds of likes within a couple of hours.

Truly, lackeyism at its best!

Far worse, of course, is the use of Facebook for negative purposes such as racism.

Using Facebook to foment negative attitudes towards immigrants, for example, is to be outrightly condemned.

The same applies to using vulgar and offensive language to express one’s opinions on Facebook. Unfortunately, this is becoming rather common and several of the choicest vulgar expressions in the Maltese language can be found in a number of Facebook pages.

Since I am dealing with negative aspects of the media in Malta, I am forced to mention a particular highly-patronised blog that has relegated political commentary in our country to the bottom of the barrel.

This is a great pity because the person who writes this blog is one of the most talented writers this country has produced in the last decades and second to none in the field of political satire. Unfortunately, this particular blog has reduced political commentary to a personal level which perhaps, ironically, is why it has been so successful.

In days gone by, the personal lives of politicians used to be considered taboo where the media in Malta was concerned.

This has changed and many unedifying details can now be devoured by curious readers. I do not agree with the argument that the personal lives of public figures should also be open to public scrutiny.

I might agree where such things as the personal financial situation of a public figure is concerned because that can influence his/her official responsibilities. However, other personal details with no bearing on a public figure’s official position should, in my opinion, not be publicised.

There are, of course, also positive aspects of the media.

We have produced a number of promising young investigative journalists.

The quality of a number of television documentaries is also to be praised.

The same applies to some newspaper articles, especially those by a couple of other contributors to this particular newspaper. However, the overall picture remains a negative one with plenty of room for improvement.