Media Today draws its sword again for Miss Piggy and Kermit
I'm sub judice. It makes a change from being sub pulizija.
Calm down, Miss Piggy. I don’t mean that kind of sword.
BondiPlus is planning Monday’s edition to be about the furore over the magistrate and the politician, with communications expert Fr Joe Borg as the sole guest.
He’s the only one who’s written about the subject dispassionately so far, in the mainstream media.
I know because the producers rang me for statistics, a copy of the charge sheet relating to the twin, identical defamation suits involving Miss Piggy and Kermit, and some general information about this blog.
I asked them whether they also rang Kermit for information (yes).
The next thing that happens is that my mole at Media Today – gosh, that put the cat among the pigeons – tells me that the newsroom staff have been mobilised to do what they can to help sabotage the show.
Well, this story brings together some of the individuals Saviour Balzan hates most (Lou Bondi, me, the people at PBS) and some of those he appears obliged to draw swords for (Miss Piggy, Kermit).
My mole tells me that Illum’s intrepid editor is now badgering PBS with demands to know why they are allowing – yes, if you please – this show to go out ‘when the case is still sub judice’.
And these are supposed to be the paragons of journalism. Instead of helping to get the news out, they help cover it up.
Ma kienx ikun il-Kummissarju George Grech.
Let’s leave aside Illum’s very confused journalistic imperatives, and tackle this business of sub judice.
1. There is no such thing. It is a legal fiction.
2. Even if there were such a thing, the two cases – Miss Piggy’s and Kermit’s – are not yet being heard.
3. Sub judice was about not subjecting jurors through undue influence by discussion in the media. There are no jurors in the magistrates’ court.
I have already sent Saviour Balzan a message about sub judice, after he failed to write any fire and brimstone pieces about Noel Arrigo and said that it was because of the case being sub judice pending appeal.
But he obviously didn’t believe me, or maybe he just finds it convenient to hide behind that sub judice excuse when he’s too scared to cover stories involving magistrates and judges.
He didn’t use the sub judice excuse when he covered the story of the police commissioner.
I’m going to repeat that message again, for the benefit of Illum’s editor, who was trained in the Super One stables and needs all the help she can get.
Here it is.
The sub judice rule, which only existed in common law countries anyway, and not in post-independence Malta where it was self-imposed by editors, was exploded 30 years ago in The Sunday Times (London) thalidomide case.
In 1979, the European Court of Human Rights held that the media have not just the right but the duty to discuss matters of general public interest, notwithstanding that litigation is pending before the courts.
6 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
If this were a case of triple homicide a-la-Freddy-Kruger, where evidence is far from being proven beyond reasonable doubt, the perpetrator is 6-foot +, looks like a cross between a neanderthal and someone out of Kiss ….. not even then would I understand the frenzy to try & stop the show.
The only persons who would need to be protected from the influence of the media in such a case would be a jury, who in the above would be sequestered for the duration of the trial.
There are no juries involved in a case such as DCG’s.
Just a magistrate ….. who is not supposed to be influenced by a TV show ….. suppost.
We citizens are barely being given our bread … don’t deprive us of the circus please !
I quote you “some of the individuals Saviour hates most..”. Jidhirli li “some” kellha tkun miktuba in capital letters. Ghax in-nies li semmejt int, inkluza int, veru kontrihom Saver u ejja intih il beneficcju (li ma jisthoqqlux) li kultant tniggzuh bhala gurnalisti jew opinionisti brillanti, u jkollu jirritalja.
Imma meta bniedem bla principju bhal dak jaqbad ma xi hadd li assolutament ma ghamillu xejn, u jibqa iziku f’ kull artiklu u jfajjar bl-addocc, ghas-semplici raguni li m’ ghandux demmhu, dik hdura. U naf x’ qed nghid, imma ahjar ma niftahx kotba hawn ghax mhux il-lok.
Why do I get the feeling that there’s going to be a massive power cut in Malta and Gozo on Monday evening?
It’s been know to happen at convenient times in the recent past, so it’s possible for it to happen again.
Well we can always ask Francois-Marie Arouet (not the real one but the one that goes with that nick in this blog) as he thinks (at least Voltaire was a he, so I am assuming that this one is a male also) that everything in Malta is controlled by the blue-eyed boys.
So how can we have a power cut at such a convenient time?
I don’t think there will be a power cut on Monday. I think there will be a show of power, instead, by the Broadcasting Authority, which two minutes before BondiPlus is due to be aired will declare that the programme is being stopped, because of sub judice or some other reason, and Lou Bondi and Fr. Joe Borg will carry on under protest discussing the role of the Broadcasting Authority in a free state.
And not only Daphne. Practically all cases instituted before the ECHR on the ground that the accused’s right to a fair trial was breached because of undue influence on potential jurors in the media, failed – their application, overturned.
The notion of pre-trial prejudicial publicity is one that has not, as yet, garnered much support from the normally conservative court. Things could change as it seems that this forum is becoming somewhat more liberal, somewhat more concerned about political correctness – instead of concentrating on its core responsibility, being a positive application of the law in guaranteeing the preservation of constitutionally enshrined human rights and civil liberties of citizens falling within its remit.
The situation is dissimilar in common-law countries, as you correctly pointed out, particularly in the United States. In cases of certain notoriety,where the commission of a particular offence would have had a serious impact on the community within which it was committed and where news coverage would have been extant, an accused may, though only occaisonally, have a plea for a change of seat, succesfully entertained. Such was the case with the Simpson trial for example. It is also the case, that the judicial systems being different the accused is tried before a jury upon being charged. And usually, though not always, a person is charged within a relatively short period of time from committing the offence. The situation is somewhat different in Malta.
One could reasonably argue, of course, that within a small territory such as ours, the effect of prejudicial pre-trial publicity – effected in this case not only by the media!! – could deleteriously effect an accused’s right to a fair trial to amuch greater extent.
However, readers should consider the following:
1. Pre-trial pubblicity would presumably impinge upon those accused of having comitted offences of note and where a trial by jury would be an option and therefore an offence where the punishment on conviction would exceed ten years imprisonment.
2. The judicial system is such that a significant amount of time passes between when the accused is charged before a court of criminal inquiry and requested to answer to the general question, and when he is then arraigned before the Criminal Court before a jury (if he so elects). This is done purposely to allow what is known as the public hue and cry to die down sufficiently and for emotions to be placated by the passage of time and the confluence of life’s events. This allows then for a more objective and dispassionate assesment of the facts by your nine men and women of average intelligence – or average stupidity, depending on which side of the bar you happen to be looking at any given moment!!
3. The accused has a right to be tried before a jury of HIS peers. A change of seat, in our case, would have to mean-per force-a change of territory and that simply, legally, is just not possible.