Tabatha, I also fully agree with what you say.

“The hamallu retort needs a challenge as a comeback, also prepared, also no matter the response to the initial question from Joseph Muscat. ”

If the prime minister provides one of his tu quoque retorts, he should be asked specifically:

“Ah, jigifieri inti ghamilt hekk ghax il-gvern l-iehor kien jaghmel hekk?”

That would leave the prime minister in a very awkward situation and he cannot afford leaving the media with those conclusions.

Yes, the media need to be trained about these situations and how they do not let go their prey.

Ciccio,

I agree completely.

Do we know whether there have been requests for hard-line real-time interviews that Joseph Muscat has accepted with an investigative reporter?

Or whether these have been requested?

I imagine he wouldn’t have the guts to accept, not without a strict binding contract, all questions viewed beforehand and strictly adhered to and a pre-release approval option.

What a huge gulf of a difference, to have Government represented by a David Cameron and a William Hague.

The hamallu retort needs a challenge as a comeback, also prepared, also no matter the response to the initial question from Joseph Muscat.

The spontaneous media, needs to practice the art, and discipline, of hammering out shooting questions, not just wide abstract open-ended fishing questions.

Shooting questions are where just Yes/ No replies are expected.

If Joseph Muscat’s parametres are conveniently undefined, “composed in poetry,” then they need to be defined by elimination.

You make an excellent analysis there, TW.

You say:

“Evidently, if a reporter was awaiting his flight, the prepared hamallu retort was only going to be yet another swing of the club, regardless of what the question may have been. ”

I agree that the hamallu retort was prepared, regardless of the question.

Then, there are so many things that are so wrong in the PM’s reaction, which have already been highlighted by Daphne and by various comments on this website.

The mere fact that the prime minister’s car stopped on a public road because of the presence of a section of the media is itself unusual. As long as no one’s safety was put in jeopardy, that car should not have stopped.

As the NET reporter says at 1.37 below, it was the PM who ordered the driver to stop the car, and I am morally convinced that he did so to give a retort to NET and to Simon Busuttil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Qe5ccWRCc&app=desktop

But there is one more thing that this website has not raised as yet. Notice how, after his prepared retort, regardless of the question, the prime minister is unable to reply to the second question by the NET reporter.

To the simple question “Hemm raguni ghal din il-btala” (What was the purpose of this trip), the prime minister replies with “Skuzi?” (I beg your pardon?) and is visibly confused and lost for words.

Shows that the PM was lost in his anger. And that he is unable to calmly and coherently reply to a simple question by the media when he is put on the spot.

The prime minister should be put on the spot by the media more often.

Berlusconi.

Even though Simon Busuttil’s ego is understated to the extreme and Joseph Muscat’s exaggeratedly inflated, Joseph Muscat still manages a bilious, almost frothing, deference to Simon Busuttil’s actions.

To me this is indicative of a deep-lying awareness of both his deficiencies as Labour politician in charge of Malta and the sum of his inferiority complexes as a person.

I would say he is most fearful of the qualities in Simon Busuttil that he lacks.

Joseph Muscat has consistently been revealed as a liar.
Simon Busuttil has consistently been true to his word and values.

Joseph Muscat is devious and scheming, with no sustainable plan to-date. Joseph Muscat’s intentions were masked and misrepresented – even to his own voters. Joseph Muscat steers clear of transparency.
Simon Busuttil is too good and decent and thankfully transparently so. The difference is only too stark. We are only beginning to appreciate this by measure of the contrast provided.

Joseph Muscat is unable to carry out a discussion where the probability of failure is stacked against him. Therefore any political debate must necessarily be dragged down to the level of street gangs for any level of oral engagement to be forthcoming from him. He uses his honed brand of dead-end one-liners as a one-eyed caveman would a club.

Simon Busuttil is beautifully eloquent on the other hand, stitching into clear, logical, discourse the responsibilities of office. He is tenacious and patient with it, and this drives Joseph Muscat up the wall.

When Joseph Muscat snarls in this way, it is because he feels cornered.

He was conscious that his absence from Malta coincided with the proceedings he himself instigated against Simon Busuttil. Evidently, if a reporter was awaiting his flight, the prepared hamallu retort was only going to be yet another swing of the club, regardless of what the question may have been.

Fear as a cold sweat on a fleshy person is an ugly thing.

What happens when he can no longer contain that fear?

It may be because it’s the “in” thing to travel abroad to watch your favorite team play some important match or a Formula 1 race.

We all know Tonio Fenech loves Arsenal, and I know that Michael Falzon goes to watch Juventus.

Franco Debono goes to watch Fiorentina. Probably Lawrence Gonzi, who was a good football player, prefers watching his favourite team Inter Milan on TV.

I have colleagues who every now and then take some days off to go and watch football or car races abroad.

What gender?

Ghax manly. The morning after a night out with the lads after a game of footy. Hard blokes, ain’t we all?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qamVB4ixxGs

I hear he’s a heterosexual.

I agree. His love for football extends only as far as wanting to be as round as a football.