I have to strongly disagree.

I really don’t think that the point is whether Mariella Dimech has had an interesting or colourful life.

If she has reinvented herself, good on her – though it would be far better she comes clean on that especially since she is presenting such a programme.

Nor is it even relevant if one thinks she is a nice person or not. That is a matter of personal opinion and I’m sure her friends like her a lot.

The real issue is whether due process was followed in her obtaining her television slot. If it was, good luck to her. If it was not, shame on her and I think her brother too.

If this is the case, they are nothing more than another person grabbing what they can.

Some newspaper really needs to investigate this hospital.

I had the misfortune of being in the same cafe as this Mrs Dimech, and believe me it was not a pleasant thing, besides having to hear her silly voice with her make believe posh accent, she was bragging about this, that and the other.

We had no option but to leave as we couldn’t take her silliness any more. Xi dwejjaq ta’ nies.

I agree. I always used to think that it was just me who did not see eye to eye with her.

Now I know.

There are more resources available to Mount Carmel Hospital than one would think. It is the management of these resources that is abysmal.

There are a number of professionals who can choose to simply stay away from the hospital and get away with it.

Those who decide to grace the place of work with their presence are free to choose whether they feel like spending time with patients or ensconced in their office together with the computer.

Their pay cheque can just as well be flushed down the drain; fat lot of good they are doing to the people they are supposed to be treating.

Thankfully the sum total of committed professionals is greater than the number of bummers flopping around.

Everybody, including the top administrators, knows who these people are and nobody, but really NOBODY gives a damn.

I am convinced that if there is any form of divine justice these individuals will have a lot to answer for.

The ones who bear the brunt of this criminal behaviour are the patients and, at times to an even greater extent, their carers. They are left out in the cold and if they scream in pain it is a very silent scream.

Shots showing a reporter doing a stand-upper with a shop sign clearly visible behind his/her head were pounced upon if aired.

TV stations often blurred them if the cameraman had, for some reason, not taken the shot to avoid them.

Saviour Balzan’s TVM promo for his show Reporter is in breach of the law, but neither Reno Bugeja and even less so, the Broadcasting Authority, care.

The promo shows Balzan standing in front of shelves with rows of bound Malta Today papers, with the name clearly visible down the spines.

While he is meant to be advertising Reporter, the visual image instead advertises his newspaper, and in TV, the visuals are stronger than the spoken word.

If PBS cared about pushing its programmes, it would insist that he uses the Reporter name and logo and not the name of his newspaper in the promotional material.

The BA is also sound asleep as this is clear surreptitious advertising.

There is a well-established principle of consumer protection that advertising must be recognisable.

A viewer must know if a programme is trying to influence his or her buying behaviour.

In this case, it is worse because you are deceived into thinking that the advert is for the TVM show Reporter when it is really for Malta Today.

In 2008, the Broadcasting Authority had issued clarifications about the law regarding surreptitious advertising in programmes. Kevin Aquilina, who was CEO at the time, and who was much more vigilant than the current incumbent Pierre Cassar (a former sports contributor for The Times)
had specified:

“Following a consultation exercise carried out in summer 2008, the Broadcasting Authority has clarified the rules on surreptitious advertising and separation contained respectively in paragraphs 4 and 9 of the Third Schedule of the Broadcasting Act. These rules read as follows: “4. Advertising and teleshopping shall be readily distinguishable as such and kept quite separate from the other parts of the programme service by optical or acoustic means…” and “9. Surreptitious advertising shall be prohibited.”

Up to 2010, the Broadcasting Authority used to monitor for surreptitious advertising. See:
http://www.ba-malta.org/prdetails?id=201
Malta Today know about this as they had reported it:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/6353/broadcasting-authority-fines-one-tv-net-for-surreptitious-advertising#.VGBZo_nF-So

But with Taghna Lkoll Balzan now back at PBS, neither PBS nor the BA seem to be interested.

This might interest you as well, as it shows Pierre Cassar knows about the law too, as well he should:

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2009-05-17/news/new-rules-on-surreptitious-television-advertising-from-july-224996/

Beingpressed:

to receive visitors in private within all reasonable times – as required by article 3 (1) (s) of the Mental Health Act does not cost money, but only requires some good will from whoever is responsible especially some nurses.

to be allowed near a patient’s bed to tend for his/her needs does not cost money but may make a carer feel useful in such difficult circumstances.

given the right to full respect and dignity without the need to be treated in a 6 bedded ward is not the end of the world to provide.

the right to a safe and hygienic care does not cost much either.

btw – Dr. Grech is not CEO but Superintendent of Mount Carmel.

Mount Carmel is not in the public eye. God knows when they last spent any money there. It’s a horrible place.

Anton Grech does a fantastic job along with most of his staff both at Mater Dei Hospital and Mount Carmel Hospital but give him more money and better facilities. They’re needed.