Whenever I write anything which is even mildly critical of the PN, I receive scores of e-mails from aggrieved Nationalist supporters. Most think there is hope for me yet and that I secretly harbour Nationalist sympathies deep within my breast. One such correspondent asked why I had changed: "Aren't you the same girl who had a flag signed by all the Nationalist candidates contesting on the tenth district? You were a PINU club member, just like me," he added.

I resisted the urge to remind him that PINU club membership was reserved to under-10s and that if his personal and political development had stopped at that age, then he's probably a man in his mid-30s who's still frantically fiddling around with a Rubik's Cube and wondering why pre-pubescent PINU members don't want to play with him anymore. I didn't tell him this, of course, preferring to reply with something suitably vague and polite which would satisfy his Nationalist nostalgia fetish.

I find it harder to reply to Labour supporters reacting to criticism of their party. That's because at some point they will express disappointment at my having joined the ranks of columnists working for the SCIM. This is not some shadowy secret society, but stands for the 'So-Called 'Independent' Media'. According to Labour sympathisers, the SCIM is made up of all the newspapers, television stations, and media houses which are not run by the MLP.

The SCIM is unfriendly - at times overtly hostile - to Labour. It is manned by people who will stop at nothing to portray the MLP in a negative light, to distort news coming from non-Nationalist sources and who indulge in selective editing when it comes to Labour-leaning personalities. This Maltese media "piovra" boasts an extensive membership of professionals. From the cameramen who focus on the Labour leader's thinning temples to the editing assistants who make the Prime Minister look like George Clooney to the TV presenter who brackets every Labour soundbite with a Labour gaffe, they all form part of the SCIM.

Well, that's the Labour version, at any rate. And what can I say? It's partly true. Not the bit about me working for the SCIM. But the bit about media being more indulgent when it comes to Nationalist cock-ups and contradictions.

Let's look at an issue which is quite topical at the moment - EU rules regarding state aid to be given to the dockyard. Prior to the election, Alfred Sant had proposed attempting to renegotiate the pre-accession agreement regarding state aid to finance the docks, citing Poland as a member country which had tried to do the same thing. This proposal was immediately distorted and trumpeted as meaning that (a) Sant wanted to re-open the mythical EU package and withdraw from the EU, if this was not done; (b) Sant was an ignoramus who had no idea of what EU laws entail.

EU officials were quoted with glee when they gave a definite thumbs-down to the idea. When the EU nixed Poland's try, the news report was greeted with much crowing and gloating. Fair enough. If Sant had come up with a half-baked proposal which infringed EU laws, then he deserved the resultant fall-out.

But what happens when the Nationalist administration does the same thing? Finance Minister Tonio Fenech, hailed as the most promising financial wunderkind on the block, has tailored the Dockyard privatisation plan. The writing off of €100 million in losses forms part of it.

When she was here on a flying visit, EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes couldn't stop telling us how out of line the proposal was. How was this portrayed in most of the non-Labour media? As a minor disappointment or a temporary setback. There were no calls for Fenech to retreat to the back of the class wearing an 'EU Dunce' cap. Nor were there any accusations hurled against the government for coming up with a plan which infringed EU rules. Notice the difference? The Labour Party certainly does. That's why its supporters keep moaning about being discriminated against by the SCIM.

This is where I part company with the moaners. It's true that the MLP is not always portrayed in a positive light in the local media, but the party doesn't help itself does it? It has a television station which can convey the party message 24/7. There are several Maltese language weeklies and a daily which are pro-Labour, and it even has an e-newspaper. So why the long faces?

Maybe they're due to the long-term Labour gripe that the party doesn't have an English language paper. This may be a drawback, but it is one which Labour should have addressed over the years, not necessarily by starting their own outfit but by finding contributors who can write in an interesting and amusing fashion. Changing One TV to a station which is not a Labour version of NET would go a long way to boosting Labour's poor media image.

In his 2004 essay 'Il Duce's Eyes', the philosopher Umberto Eco wrote about modern dictatorships, saying that they are media dictatorships and not political ones. Media dictatorships/governments are brought down by credible and amusing alternatives and not by moaning. And no - I'm not saying that because I work for SCIM, but because it's true.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt