Just a few hours after two young men bled to death in the presence of three-month-old infants and the wife of one of the men, the media vultures thought they would deliver a couple of additional blows to the victims’ grieving families.
Publication of the conspiracy theories of commentators bred on CSI programmes does not constitute satisfying the public’s right to know- Claire Bonello
Journalists and online commentators who had been desperately trying to string out the Franco Debono ultimatum saga, suddenly found another story with which to pad out pages and attract viewers.
The media erupted in an orgy of sensational ‘reporting’, speculation, and bad taste. One newspaper kicked off with a front page picture of one of the murdered men holding his twin children, side by side with a photograph of the first baby born in 2012.
Maybe this was meant to impress upon us the terrible contrast between life leaving the world and life entering it, but it only managed to impress upon us that whoever designed that front page has a sensitivity chip missing.
Didn’t the bright spark who designed the page realise how inappropriate that was? What next? Photos of mutilated children accompanying a panto promotion?
L-Orizzont – usually a source of extensive but reliable crime reportage – decided to regale us with a photograph of Duncan Zammit’s parents, faces contorted with grief, as the awful reality of their loss struck them.
Elsewhere, some cameraman shot images of Zammit’s brother keening over in shock. That sad excuse for a news portal which is Maltastar thought it fit to push a homosexual theory angle. Without any confirmed source of information, Maltastar told us: “Investigations have led the police to believe that Zammit and Gera were very close and have known each other intimately”.
I’m not sure if the Maltastar hacks realise that “jafu lil xulxin intimament” in Maltese translates to “they know each other very well”, without the homo romantic connotations made in the Maltastar article.
In any case, it would seem that the police investigating the tragedy have been made redundant, Maltastar’s finest having already put their sleuthing hats on and revealed the motive of the crime.
With a sense of authority, the article continued: “There are indications that Gera was resenting the fact that Zammit wanted to spend more time with the family since his twins were born three months ago.”
There. All done and dusted, the Sherlocks at Maltastar have solved the crime.
Maltatoday piggybacked on the ‘crime of passion’ theory, and regurgitated all that Maltastar had said with a few tweaks here and there.
Every single newspaper filched photos from Facebook, happily using them to illustrate their articles and far from the context in which they had originally been posted.
During the funeral of Nicholas Gera, the media ghouls descended upon the church to relay shots of grieving relatives and the coffin.
In a supremely ironic gesture, the media establishments that had been spewing pages of speculation-fuelled articles, quoted the funeral homily requesting silence and respect for the grieving families.
All along, newspapers lifted comments made online and lazily passed them off as reporting.
It’s not the first time the media have plumbed such depths. Some years ago, when a man was brutally murdered and his body mutilated, a writer seemed to take pleasure in highlighting his sexual proclivities, grieving family notwithstanding.
But that was one isolated episode of nastiness. Now, it looks like every media establishment has been infected with the insensitivity virus.
Coupled with a cavalier attitude towards establishing the truth and reliability of the information gleaned from dubious sources and general sloppiness, it indicates that a new nadir has been reached in ethical terms.
Of course, the media will try and justify the crassness they have shown during this past week by squealing about the public’s right to know.
Now, the public does have a right to information about matters which can concern it. Ensuring that police investigations are carried out diligently and that crimes are solved are both matters which concern the public, and the media are totally justified if they stick to covering these aspects.
But the publication of the conspiracy theories of the pathetic commentators bred on a diet of CSI programmes, does not constitute satisfying the public’s right to know.
Neither does showing photographs of grieving relatives. Such images add nothing to the sum of useful knowledge out there. How can anybody benefit from being able to pore over the images of heartbroken relatives?
Now that some relatives of the dead men have chosen to speak to the press, it will be argued they brought media attention upon themselves. But I would say even this is brought about by prying media. Relatives feel compelled to enter the media den to defend the honour and memory of their loved ones, in response to the rumours being bandied about in media forums.
They have to do this when they want to be alone to grieve and to try and pick up the pieces of their lives.
The feelings of grieving relatives are best described by Maureen Basnicki, whose husband perished in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre. She said: “The media pounced on us – I felt like I was in a goldfish bowl. There is an immediate resentment of media because you are trying to deal with the shock. They show no sensitivity at your darkest moments.”
In the current scenario, I feel this holds true for local media establishments too. For their ‘coverage’ – a collective fail.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt