Come on, Nestor – and what did the ambassador say about Jesmond? Hmmmm?
Jesmond Mugliett - he can't accept that he really was a problem (and still is)
Malta Today’s reporting is so blatantly skewed towards the anti-Gonzi fixation of its owners, Saviour Balzan and Roger de Giorgio, that it’s almost amusing.
Almost, but not quite.
It’s actually disturbing to see how a sick obsession can turn a business investment into a personal axe-grinding machine. Those two, who have nothing in common but their fixation, assume that the reading public shares their various neuroses.
So, for example, when their editrix Julia Farrugia – they don’t seem to mind her splashing around in a swimsuit in Comino in front of the Super One cameras to raise money for media rival Super One, perhaps because it isn’t a media rival at all – got into trouble with the Press Ethics Commission, the subsequent issue of Malta Today was pretty much a special edition obsessing on the subject.
Like anybody else gave a damn at that stage. Anybody who actually bought the newspaper would have felt ripped off.
Then there are the credibility issues which come from agenda-driven reporting. Take this report in today’s online edition, for instance.
Malta Today’s reporter Nestor Laiviera, whose father Victor is all over the internet defending Joseph Muscat and dissing the prime minister – not that Nestor is responsible, of course, poor thing, but some context is of the essence – thought it would be a great idea to speak to some politicians about the Wikileaked US embassy cable in which then ambassador Bordanaro reported to Washington on the new cabinet in March 2008.
And the politicians he chose were – bingo! – Robert Arrigo and Jesmond Mugliett. Arrigo cut him off with a couple of words, but Mugliett wouldn’t stop talking, criticising the prime minister (obviously) and demonstrating that he doesn’t know what an ambassador’s reporting duties are (maybe he thinks their job is to go to parties).
Among other stupidities, he said this:
Such choices are sovereign matters. Disparaging remarks about the competences of Maltese ministers from a foreign ambassador are disrespectful of the choices the Maltese and the Prime Minister would have made,” Mugliett told MaltaToday.
Ambassador Bordanaro wasn’t discussing the cabinet with the prime minister, Jesmond. In that cable to her bosses, she reported her own observations. Also, her words were not intended for public consumption, but were classified. They became public only because of….Wikileaks.
How hard is that to understand, even for a proto-Labour voter?
But this is not about Jesmond Mugliett’s consuming grudges, which – oh happy circumstance – just so happen to dovetail with Saviour’s and Roger’s.
This is about the way Malta Today reports its stories.
So Nestor quoted Jesmond extensively as he let rip against the former ambassador and the current prime minister, but significantly failed to frame Jesmond’s anger and irritation in the context of what the ambassador had said about him in her report to Washington.
Just in case Malta Today’s subeditor has lost the reference and would like to rectify this serious omission (fat chance), here it is, quoted verbatim from the cable:
Corruption charges played a major role in the campaign and to prevent any stain on his new government, Gonzi opted not to appoint certain otherwise popular MPs to ministries. For example Jesmond Mugliett, former Minister for Urban Development and Roads, had been accused of funneling business to a construction firm he had set up. Another backbencher MP, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, was involved in a land deal that is currently under investigation. Neither was offered a ministry.
10 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Jesmond Mugliett’s memory might need to be refreshed as he curries favour with Labour and Saviour:
http://www.mlp.org.mt/printer.aspx?cnt=NewsDetails&t=content&ID=STQ12072007D&print=true
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=jesmond+mugliett&view=detail&id=942DB5E6EFBA0DEFB534F605BAF92F287F8E1576&first=0&FORM=IDFRIR
According to Mugliett, heads of mission ought to be politically correct in their classified missives to their respective governments vis a vis the host country.
Another one for the skip.
How he ever made it to a PN cabinet is beyond me.
“How he ever made it to a PN cabinet is beyond me”. Good question, Anthony.
By coincidence, that same question gave Dr. Gonzi more credence to his observation regarding the appointing of competent individuals not necessarily elected by the voters in an election. Otherwise Mugliett may have never made it to Cabinet as minister along with a few others.
This government saw a number of disgruntled former favourites being given the cold shoulder, only to turn against their own PM publicly and shamelessly.
There is a lot to be said about the integrity of these “gentlemen”, but the mere fact that they decided to criticise the prime minister publicly for matters which are not linked to his leadership but to their own personal gripes proves how right the prime minister was to leave them out.
Jesmond Mugliett, JPO and Arrigo spring to mind but there are others.
Of course, Malta Today doesn’t give two hoots about the integrity of any politician because as long as its stories servel its owners’ grudges, then it’s fine.
Malta Today is devoid of integrity and so doesn’t have any qualms when it comes to the lack of integrity of its interviewees and those it champions.
About this Wikileaks business, I’m all for transparency but up to a point. In my view, Wikileaks is an irresponsible and childish organisation which is happy to prejudice the security of nations or the freedom of communication between diplomatic channels to further its own anarchic aims.
Assange and his team are merely anarchists who attack the institutions not with bombs but with leaks. The consequences can be just as serious.
These leaks on the 2008 election were quite interesting but they should have been kept under wraps rather than printed for the world to consume.
Franco Debono
There is nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.
“Assange and his team are merely anarchists who attack the institutions not with bombs but with leaks. The consequences can be just as serious.”
For a long while I was prepared to agree with that, but any real damage done by the leaks seems to date not have been forthcoming.
Perhaps it’s too early to say, but so far their track record of protecting people seems quite solid.
It’s hard to take defence of Wikileaks without sounding like a teenage idealist, but many of the institutions “harmed” by the leaks seems to be in dire need of transparency – a transparency they consistently strive not to acquire.
“These leaks on the 2008 election were quite interesting but they should have been kept under wraps rather than printed for the world to consume.”
And why is that? Isn’t it in all our interest to know these things and to help us shape our minds for the next election? I fail to see anything those leaks contained that has been non-beneficial.
Sadly, the US position and influence have been seriously impaired. No head of government, any time soon, is going to have a frank talk with any ambassador again.
Certain discussions should be kept private.
[Daphne – It is taken as given that ambassadors and their senior staff talk to key people only so as to be able to report the information they obtain. That’s what ambassadors are FOR. It is also taken as given, however, that the reports which ambassadors file are not going to be exposed on the internet, and it is in that context that people speak to ambassadors.]
Matthew 7:16
By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Bajtar tax-xewk?