Mad Max will make them pay
Pretty-boy Jason took to the studio at Super One to announce that those involved in the production of the very interesting Miriam Dalli/Maria Muscat/Charlon Gouder video on YouTube would be made to pay. Even as he spoke, Labour’s lions of change were hunting them down.
Quite frankly, I’m sure Michael Falzon would prefer to spend his time munching on half an elephant while letting off fireworks and kissing his lucky santa tal-Madonna, in between bouts of floating about in his surcharged swimming-pool while chatting on the mobajl to Natalie, but never mind. Let him hunt.
The point here, my dear ‘Robin’, is not who produced the video, who uploaded it, or who disseminated it, but whether what’s in it is true. And Jason had nothing to say about that.
So if it’s untrue then it’s libellous and you can do your impossible best to find out who did it and sue. But if it’s true – well, I’m sorry folks, but you’ve just discovered the meaning of the Biblical phrase that he who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind.
Miriam Dalli is head of One News, after all – a television show that has nothing to do with news and everything to do with lies, cheating, persecution of the innocent, mud-slinging, hoodwinking the gullible, and a thousand other acts of despicable behaviour. She’s a beautiful woman and she’s fairly smart. In her position, a better person would have taken advantage of those assets and deployed them to great effect in the private sector, not taken God’s gifts and used them to mop the floor of the urinals at a Hells’ Angels meeting, so to speak. Imagine if the individuals involved in these cases had been the head of Net News and a Nationalist Party reporter. Super One would have rammed the subject down our throats over an entire month, but Net hasn’t said a word about this, and that’s the difference between the two political parties.
It’s interesting, though, to see that Labour’s reaction to this taste of their own medicine (except that it’s not really a taste of their own medicine, because we have been given to understand that the facts in the video are correct, while Labour prefers lies), is to hunt down the perpetrator using the giant party machine and exact revenge. Typical Labour – old Labour, new Labour, they’re all the same. Clean out your house. You really need it.
Students boo Sant; Sant sends in his tanks. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando challenges Sant; Sant calls the police. A video goes on YouTube showing the alleged extra-curricular activities of Charlon Gouder, Miriam Dalli and Maria Muscat, and Jason Micallef goes on television to promise revenge on those responsible. Those responsible, Jason? Why don’t you take a look around your own studio?
9 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I think there is a mole in the MLP. And he/she is doing a lot of harm, to the MLP, naturally.
What a mess ,even the steel soldiers seem to be corrupt.
Can someone post a video of Jason’s conference / threat? I am dying to see it.
Can somebody please post a link to the Miriam Dalli/Maria Muscat/Charlon Gouder video on YouTube?
[Moderator – the clip can be found by searching YouTube.com for ‘Charlon Gouder’.]
ive just seen the youtube clip. now that is groundbreaking.
@ DCG your last sentence is pure dynamite ;-)
will the wig keep up with his “zero tolerance” policy?
This is the best Maltese general election ever!
Come on Jason Micallef. Don’t be silly. You have ridiculed the whole Nationalist Party and now because something about your reporters which by the way makes sense, you are trying to make them pay. If the Nationalist Party had to repay you and your leader for what you have done, you would not see the day after tomorrow.
[Moderator – added a fullstop to enhance the dramatic effect of your closing sentence.]
Well done Paul… :)
When Jason nods to whatever Dr Sant says, he looks like those small plastic dogs at the rear window of a 60’s car, they nod for every car movement, on a bumpy road.
Sant’s mudslinging campaign is nothing less than what Liard Wilcox (http://www.lairdwilcox.com/) in his essay ‘The Practice of Ritual Defamation: How values, opinions and beliefs are controlled in democratic societies’ describes as Ritual Defamation.
Here’s some of what he has to say:
Defamation is the destruction or attempted destruction of the reputation, status, character or standing in the community of a person or group of persons by unfair, wrongful, or malicious speech or publication … with the intention of silencing or neutralizing his or her influence, and/or making an example of them so as to discourage similar independence and “insensitivity” or non-observance of taboos. It is different in nature and degree from simple criticism or disagreement in that it is aggressive, organized and skilfully applied, often by an organization or representative of a special interest group, and in that it consists of several characteristic elements.
…
This weapon rises above the mere slander or smear in both its intent and in its implementation.
…
Ritual Defamation is not ritualistic because it follows any prescribed religious or mystical doctrine, nor is it embraced in any particular document or scripture. Rather, it is ritualistic because it follows a predictable, stereotyped pattern which embraces a number of elements, as in a ritual.
It’s important to recognize and identify the patterns of a ritual defamation. Like all propaganda and disinformation campaigns it is accomplished primarily through the manipulation of words and symbols. It is not used to persuade, but to punish. Although it may have cognitive elements, its thrust is primarily emotional. Ritual Defamation is used to hurt, to intimidate, to destroy, and to persecute, and to avoid the dialogue, debate and discussion upon which a free society depends. On those grounds it must be opposed no matter who tries to justify its use.
You may also find what he has to say in his essay on extremist traits as eye-opening as I did. He starts by quoting Robert F. Kennedy who wrote:
“What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.”
Wilcox then goes on to list the “specific traits or behaviours that tend to represent the extremist “style”…
Amongst others things he mentions
1. character assassination
2. name-calling and labelling
3. irresponsible sweeping generalizations
4. inadequate proof for assertions
5. advocacy of double standards
6. advocacy of some degree of censorship or repression of their opponents and/or critics
7. tendency toward argument by intimidation
8. use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping clichés
9. emphasis on emotional responses and, correspondingly, less importance attached to reasoning and logical analysis
10. extremists often feel that the system is no good unless they win
I couldn’t have come up with a better description of labour party tactics if I tried!