When Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici had been admitted to hospital for surgery, they rushed to ask what he was suffering from. Less than a fortnight after his surgery, they proudly published a story saying that they had asked when he would be back at the office and that his spokesman had politely given them the finger.

Take for example their coverage of Muscat and his activities. Did they even bother to criticise him for deceiving the young people in his audience? No.

Debono is another case. They reported what he said in reply to Judge Bonello. Did they bother to ask other criminal lawyers about the matter? No.

In this way they give the impression that Debono is the only criminal lawyer on the Rock.

Then, like bears coming our of a long winter of hibernation, they produce an editorial piece criticising Muscat and Debono and they don’t even realise that by that time, some people would have forgotten what the arguments were all about.

Sabrina Agius might not have managed to get herself installed there, but her place may well have been filled by other Sabrina Agiuses.

[Daphne – GD, spouses are – at law and in fact – two distinct individuals and not a two-headed hydra. When details about a private person are disclosed by his or her spouse or his or her neighbour is utterly irrelevant. The fact remains that they were not disclosed by HIM or HER. The media may not report what is said about private persons, even if – perhaps especially so – it is a spouse or immediate family member who says it.]

I know the contractor whose truck was featured in the article, but the directors’ first names did not tally.

The next day The Times carried a small correction somewhere, which I missed , but the damage was done.

Similarly, recently I was a witness in a court case, and my testimony was completely misreported. It then transpired that there was no one reporting for The Times, but they picked up or “shared” the report from Malta Today, who had a reporter present, and “paraphrased” it. Veru tal-misthija.