This column started life, if my memory serves, dimmed as it is by advancing age and consequent decrepitude, as a commentary on the media, hence its original name Quote, Unquote. The name has gone into disuse and references to the media have been less direct, politics and the foibles of society in general having become more the focus of my thoughts, such as they are.

The fact remains that it is from the media that we get our information, said media now including the blogosphere and social networks, also known as Facebook and Twitter, though the latter hasn’t caught on to the extent of the former yet.

There have been glimmerings that indicate a return to the critical sternness of former times

It is part of the columnist’s lot to keep a weather eye on the media, for inspiration and grist.

Two headlines caught my attention on Wednesday. One referred to a Portuguese transvestite involved in drug smuggling, the other concerning a Muslim being appointed to office in the Office of the Prime Minister. They are entirely unconnected except in one respect, the irrelevance of the qualifiers.

Why was the fact that the person from Portugal was a transvestite important enough to merit a headline? Equally, why was the faith of the appointee to the OPM something remarkable?

In the first case, the choice was made by the sub-editor who ran the story and - at least in some respects - I can see the catchiness of the headline, sex being what sells.

In the second case, the choice to highlight the personal religious choice of the person concerned was made by whoever thought fit to make it and while it brings a welcome whiff of diversity to the general environment, I have to ask, with all due respect, who cares?

It is sadly true that we have way too much prejudice against anyone who is different from the norm, in this case the norm being (assumed) espousal of Catholicism, but, frankly, references to religion only serve to strengthen, not weaken, these prejudices.

I purposely didn’t examine the comments below the story about the Muslim gentleman because I have come to the conclusion that reading many of them is guaranteed to lead to desperation. Any story that includes references to Islam and/or immigration attracts particularly virulent manifestations of intolerance and bigotry, so much so that their tenor inspires the response, when asked what the collective noun for those who write comments is, the congenitally moronic.

You get pearls of wisdom that persuade you that this description is appropriate even when the story isn’t about people of different extraction or religion (code for immigrants from the south, in case you hadn’t figured that out).

Check out, if you want to risk your equanimity, the comments that follow any story about a tragic accident. Experts in everything from physics to law to quantum mechanics leap to their keyboards to let us have the benefit of their wisdom, sometimes bringing into the mix elements of chauvinism and shallowness that are breathtaking in their depth.

For instance, the story about the search for the unfortunate souls lost at sea from a yacht moored near Dwejra prompted comments about who should pay for the rescue efforts, about how it happened, about why the people concerned hadn’t used their mobile phones and a myriad of other inanities.

This infatuation with having an opinion about everything under the sun, whether the opinion is based on anything other than the holder’s right to have it notwithstanding the limpidly clear and manifest incorrectness of the opinion and the complete absence of any basis of rhyme or reason for it, is sometimes mirrored inversely by the mainstream media.

Stories are reported without a scintilla of follow-up enquiry as to the underlying fabric, at least insofar as many members of the commenting classes are concerned.

Ministers, for instance, are found to be exercising their profession in flagrant breach of their code of ethics, apparently on the basis of some theory, half-baked (or even completely unbaked) as it is, that ethics are the children of a lesser god when it comes to governing behaviour and the silence of the chorus is deafening, unlike the shrill wailing of not many months ago.

To be fair, as one should even when writing a column with one’s tongue askew, there have been glimmerings of late that indicate a return to the critical sternness of former times but, in general, the tendency seems to be to adopt a “well, the Nationalists were so much worse, Labour’s resounding victory proves it, so everyone should look fondly upon their excesses now”.

That’s the sort of attitude, I’m afraid, that has people like Jason Micallef appointed to probably the most vital role in the cultural sphere (you know, the area so neglected by the Nasty Nats that Kenneth Zammit Tabona turned on them) and then all you get from valiant defenders of culture and the arts (hint, I’ve just mentioned one) are comments like: “Oh well, let’s see how it goes.” As if time can be reversed and we have bags of it to make sure that V-18 doesn’t make us squirm in the eyes of the world.

imbocca@gmail.com

www.timesofmalta.com/articles/author/20