Patient zero

Why is the media getting so excited about swine flu? We had the same pandemic ‘scares’ about Asian flu, or bird flu, and SARS, but the media are having even more of a field day with this one.
While it is understandable that countries would want to stop the spread by vetting passengers arriving from Mexico in particular, because it was the source of the current global health scare, the amount of air space dedicated to Swine flu is being over done.
It is taking up large chunks of news bulletins, when the content could have been delivered as a short item.
Besides, the advice being given is rather comical. First of all, no one should panic. So why the hype? Then the coup de grâce is the advice to wash our hands and stop kissing “in public”.
As for Dr Sanjay Gupta chasing “Patient zero” for CNN, pleeease! It turned out to be a very healthy looking child who seems to have had a complete recovery.
In fact, even in Mexico only seven people are said to have “definitely” died from Swine flu.

Read More

Economical with inquiry findings

Reading The Times of Malta, online this morning, I was incensed by a news story entitled “People to be arraigned as a result of prison inquiry”.
I was left feeling that, whoever covered the press conference, where the information was given, was either inexperienced, or was someone lacking innate curiosity, an essential journalistic requirement.
The item had no by line.

I read: "A number of people are to be arraigned over several crimes as a result of the inquiry probing the situation inside the prisons, Justice and Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici said this morning."

Obviously, I, and probably all who read the news item, would have been interested to know: What the crimes were?
I read on hoping to find out.

"Dr Mifsud Bonnici said the inquiry report made administrative recommendations and proposed that certain people should be arraigned," continued the news item.
Yes, so what were the recommendations exactly and who is being arraigned and for which crimes?

"When asked, the minister preferred not to say whether the people to be arraigned are inmates or officials.”

Ah, at least he was asked something, but not exactly probing stuff.

“The minister was also asked why the government did not publish the whole inquiry report. He said this was because he preferred to let justice take its course and take concrete decisions before making such a report public."
And that ladies and gentlemen was that.

Hang on a minute, but that only deals with the arraignments. Surely there where more items of public interest that might not warrant court action in the report?

All Dr Mifsud Bonnici was prepared to say was “that the reform of the prisons was on the government’s agenda and a unit had been set up within his ministry to ensure that recommendations were followed."

Now is that a news story or more of a Ministerial press release? Surely it is of public interest to know more? Are journalists just relying on what Ministers tell them these days? I commented online. (Incidentally, my comment did not appear).

I was therefore relieved to find out a few moments later that the editorial “Why public inquiries ought to be published” in the same paper tackled the issue.
I also discovered, from the editorial, that “ The independent prison inquiry followed allegations including that a convicted drug trafficker had a say on the granting of prison leave and that this person was given preferential treatment at Corradino Correctional Facility.”

This reminded me of a wonderfully funny, but with home truths, British TV series called “Porridge”, starring Ronnie Barker.

The editorial quite rightly points out to a number of inquiries that have not been aired, despite this government’s rhetoric on transparency and accountability and strongly feels that the full report of this and other inquiries, which are still under wraps, should be published immediately.

I sent another comment in response to the editorial agreeing with the stance taken by The Times and auguring a vigorous follow up. (This also did not appear)
However, if one has to gauge public interest by the comments sent in response to both articles, it seems most are happy living in ignorance.

By 17.41 the editorial had only two comments and the news story, which appeared online at 11.54 had three, none dealing with lack of transparency.

Read More