Some time ago The Times of London carried an article about 'The big fat gossip who won't shut up'. It was about Perez Hilton (real name Mario Lavandeira) who is described as being the most influential, perhaps the most facetious, and the cruellest gossip blogger in the world. The chubby Hilton is best known for his skewering of celebrities on the blog he started up.

Some parts of his so-called commentary are not particularly funny. Calling Kate Moss a "hairy ballerina on crack", or scrawling insulting remarks about intelligence over a picture of Heather Mills's face with Microsoft Paint, for example, is not at all witty. Still, it attracts viewers who are drawn to the daily spectacle of seeing celebrities being laid low.

Hilton justifies it as entertainment. When interviewed, he said: "A lot of people may dismiss what I do as trivial or inconsequential, but I take what I do seriously and I think it makes the world a better place because I'm entertaining people, even if that's just what I do." Celebrities fear him, 'serious' journalists rail against him, but the hits keep coming, so Hilton figures that he must be doing something right.

The same 'shock and awe' formula used by Hilton has long been utilised by Ann Coulter in the field of politics. She is an American pundit with strong Republican leanings, an acid-tongue and a penchant for being unnecessarily offensive. Coulter has said that Jews ought to be perfected, that the widows of those who had died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks were revelling in their status as celebrities and that she had never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.

When asked to cover a Democratic Convention in 2004, she started off her article with: "Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston..." She then veered off into a litany of insults aimed at the female attendees. The right-leaning newspaper that had commissioned the piece in question, declined to publish it.

Along the years, Coulter has been dropped by several of the papers which carried her columns. One of them described her writings as "shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited". The editor of another publication felt the newspaper had to dismiss one of its star columnists because "it came to the point where she was the issue rather than what she was writing about."

Despite these relatively minor setbacks, Coulter continues to be extremely popular on the American television circuit, has published seven bestselling books, which have sold more than three million copies to date, and her website continues to attract heavy traffic.

It seems that journalism has now been superseded by another form of communication, which consists in the blurring between opinion, journalism and entertainment. This is not an entirely new format, having been in evidence as far back as the 1950s in the US.

However, media such as the internet, provide an easily accessible (and widely viewed) platform for the political shock-jocks who choose to write in this way, and they are gaining a massive fan base even in Malta. Since this message model is attracting so many readers, it would be interesting to try and analyse this form of rhetoric especially in view of the fact that it could influence the way readers look at the political landscape.

The most notable characteristic of this form of writing is that it is essentially a form of 'outrage merchandising'. Its success depends primarily on the ability to stir up impassioned reactions from its readers. This need not necessarily be a favourable response.

When Coulter declared that women should be armed but not allowed to vote as they had no idea of how money was earned, she did not attract positive comments but created a firestorm of controversy which kept her in the news for a good number of days. This resulted in higher book sales and her cashing in on the artificial controversy which she had created.

While there is an emphasis on eliciting an emotional response, much less importance is given to rational debate. Who wants to hear an argument about utility rates, when they could be hurling insults in cyberspace?

Incidentally, this insistence on stirring up emotions is also a propaganda method favoured by extremists, as noted by Harold Lasswell in his book Psychopathology and Politics, where he observes, "The essential mark of the agitator is the high value he places on the emotional responses of the public."

The outrage merchandisers serve up a soup spiced up with facts, rumour, and innuendo about their chosen subjects' personalities, profession, public life and politics. They delve deep into politicians' personal lives, citing the public's right to know about the moral make-up of the people they vote for. Of course, this is a legitimate avenue of journalistic inquiry, as citizens should be well-informed as to the character, history and experience of their representatives. However, in many instances, this insistence on delving into politicians' private lives is only a flimsy excuse for attracting attention and publicity.

If the public is to be informed about conflicts of interest, cronyism, corruption and patronage, it is to be expected that equal coverage is to be given to investigations as to who funds politicians as to who they are sleeping with. Unfortunately, this is not often the case.

Salacious details are more likely to be read than the Auditor General's report or a debate about party financing, so that is what the public will get to know about - a restricted, though titillating view of the political scene.

Another interesting point about shock-jock journalists is that they act as moral arbiters, positioning themselves as the voice of proper mores and values. So, for example, a politician may be harshly criticised for not leading an exemplary family life.

Again, there is nothing wrong in this criticism, except for when it is selectively applied. Very often, the opponents and allies do not receive the same treatment at the hands of the shock-jocks who practice and advocate flagrant double standards.

In turn this, elicits further furious reactions from readers, less reasoned discourse and the outrage circle begins anew. The whole basis of democratic discourse has been debased as readers are reduced to voyeurs looking on at the next ritual humiliation.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt