The Economist would use that tone in its opinion pieces (ex: Bagehot or Charlemagne) and, much more forcefully, in its editorials. But in its first few pages where it gives snippets of news from around the world, it would not use this tone.

It would say simply that x and y happened, which could lead to A and B. It always leaves the words ‘this newspaper believes’ for its editorials.

Of course, Maltese newspapers leave a lot to be desired when it comes to analysis and factual breakdown of events. Furthermore, Times of Malta is giving Labour a way too easy time in government (forget Malta Today; that’s a lost cause).

Journalists here in Malta should grow some balls, ask questions that are more incisive, and stop letting Muscat get away with wisecracks and his stupid smirks.

It is totally dishonest and devious of the Prime Minister to now claim that his pledge was linked soley to the reduction of the bills, by any means, when all of Malta, including Reno Bugeja, understood differently.

It was pretty obvious that by the time China joined the fray the plant’s completion deadline wasn’t going to be met.

Muscat could have taken the opportunity to claim that the Chinese investment was so advantageous that it justified postponing the building of the power station given that the reduction of bills pledge would remain unchanged.

It’s baffling how the great schemer let this window of opportunity pass him by and persisted with his on-track lie.

If this is so, how can the government continue to sustain the argument that Malta has one of the highest rates of refugees, given its population?