Even accidents as serious traffic accidents are often reported in the press. In these cases the distinction between private and public becomes blurred as is happening in the Nicholas Azzopardi case.

[Daphne – Serious traffic accidents are reported only because we live in a small town masquerading as a country, David. Serious traffic accidents are not reported in national newspapers on on national television anywhere else. Malta’s national newspapers are actually local newspapers, so the news inevitably shrinks down to ‘local’. Who in Manchester would give a damn if The Daily Telegraph were to report a car crash in Sussex? Or perhaps they could have a car crash supplement every day? For that matter, nobody gives a damn about traffic accidents in Malta either, except for those who know the victim. We’re just stuck in this ridiculous rut, dating to the years when cars were rare in Malta and so car accidents were news topics.]

Only in Malta!

[Daphne – I take it you are referring to parliament house. My dear, that’s not an office. That’s the symbol of democracy. You might as well say that you shouldn’t spend money on a church used only on Sunday mornings. And what about a theatre that’s used six times a year?]

What about the website’s ‘moderatoration’ policy?

In my opinion there is a limit to people’s right to know; but society cannot just accept a mysterious death and stop there. Police investigate to find a motive and a murderer if there is one.

We cannot accept that a crime was committed and a murderer/criminal is on the loose.

Normal people have a right to privacy, but politicians and so called VIPs lose their privacy as soon as they enter the public scene.

[Daphne – Not really, no. Not at all. That certain people ‘lose the right to privacy’ is a totalitarian, Soviet concept. The right to privacy is a fundamental human right, and nobody loses it. It is only where the ‘private life’ of the public individual moves into the public domain or has relevance to the public that it is legitimately reportable. There are landmark judgements in this regard.]

Don’t mix your herbs and your tea. Or you might start posting silly comments on Facebook.

I invite you to make a Google search of both words and you will find out who’s right.
We also pronounce “ Ħobs” with an ’s’ but we should write “Ħobż” ; same applies to zekzik.
Most probably it’s your Sliema soft accent.

[Daphne – Not really. Hobz is a final ‘z’. It’s different.]

“Zekzieka” is like “lablaba” : it could be a plural and it could be female.
As you may notice it’s with the “z” not with the “s”.

We say Zekzik not Seksik.

[Daphne – And we pronounce it with an ‘s’. There you go.]

I’m not comparing the incidents.

Why should a newspaper offer a comments facility below the story of a murder?

The newspapers were in a frenzy, updating every hour and cross-referencing each other until at one point, Malta Today quoted snide comments as factual hypotheses being followed by investigators.

The story was literally creating itself to accelerate the rate of hits.

Everyone seemed intent on getting it out of their system by talking about it, but the way online editions lapped it up was absolutely sickening.

Silvio, you are so far out of your depth on this blog. But don’t give up. We all need comic relief.

Erm, but that was a double murder… Society and the media cannot and shouldn’t close an eye in those situations. Justice must be served and the public must know that it was served. (I wouldn’t want to live next to a murder on the loose.) The fact that that particular tragedy happened to an affluent family was just an unfortunate coincidence.

[Daphne – WRONG. The only justification for shoving that story into the news was that one of the people involved – Mrs Zammit – was a very public figure with a consistent presence in the media. Had there been no public person involved, there would have been absolutely no way the newspapers could justifiably defend their decision to report the details and dissect them. What you had there was not a murder but a salacious ‘scandal’. It was obvious at the outset that that the story did not go beyond the three people involved, and that there was no ‘murderer on the loose’ and could never have been. The reporting was disgusting enough as it was. People were not concerned because they thought there might be a murderer on the loose. They just wanted to know personal details which were and still are none of their business.]

This, on the other hand, seems to be a very personal matter in that no third parties were involved. After foul play was ruled out, the media has no duty to investigate further because society has nothing to gain from it. Only in that case does continued media attention amount to wrongful prying into a private life.

You just cannot compare the two incidents.

[Daphne – The media has no right or duty to investigate murders. You have your powers confused. That’s the right and duty of the police. In fact, the duty of the media is not to hinder police work, and to cooperate with the police when it has information on crimes. The media cannot prosecute; they can only report. The media has the right and duty to investigate the police.]