Coaching by PeppiPN
It has been a baffling time for some people. First we had Austin Gatt who was absolutely amazed at why anybody should assume he has anything to do with public transport reform (despite being Transport Minister). Now Peppi Azzopardi joins the ranks of...

It has been a baffling time for some people. First we had Austin Gatt who was absolutely amazed at why anybody should assume he has anything to do with public transport reform (despite being Transport Minister).
There’s one precept of ethical journalism which Azzopardi has ignored. That’s the rule about disclosure- Claire Bonello
Now Peppi Azzopardi joins the ranks of the confused. Azzopardi simply can’t understand why he’s being criticised for coaching Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando for his encounter with Alfred Sant before the lastelection.
Azzopardi explains that his covert coaching of Pullicino Orlando was in keeping with the TV presenter’s self-declared role as champion of the underdog. Before the 2008 election, Azzopardi felt that Pullicino Orlando was being unjustly persecuted in the media.
Azzopardi’s heart bled and – without carrying out any investigation as to how matters really stood (and if Pullicino Orlando was fudging or omitting key facts ) – he offered his support to Pullicino Orlando to help him get through his martyrdom at the hands of the media.
What was initially dismissed as a “five-minute telephone chat” by a Nationalist apologist, eventually turned out to be an hour-long private lesson into “how to (tell) the truth.” Apparently, the PN headquarters was thought to be the most suitable site for Azzopardi to impart his media wisdom to Pullicino Orlando, and that is where the little coaching party was held.
Azzopardi can’t see what all the fuss is about. He says he has held a seminar about media ethics for the Labour Party, and claims to have helped all three political parties over the years. Why is everybody picking on him, Azzopardi asks?
I really hate it when someone as politically astute and media savvy as Azzopardi starts acting like an ingénue or a complete naïf. He – and his supporters – know exactly why questions are being asked about his role in the whole affair.
For the sake of those acting all dumb and martyr-like, let’s look into the matter of why a television presenter working for a company which has practically monopolised current affairs discussion programmes on the national TV station, shouldn’t skulk around helping the candidate of one political party.
And if he does, he should stop squealing about the unfairness of people criticising him and calling him a PN stooge. First things first. Azzopardi is not being criticised for his political affiliations.
He could be carrying out daily worship sessions before a giant photograph of Lawrence Gonzi while singing the Nationalist Party anthem, for all it’s worth.
Even if, in the more unlikely event, he was a closet Labour supporter, his having a political preference wouldn’t have much bearing on the matter. In no way should a person’s political allegiance be a bar to him occupying any position, including that of TV presenter.
Moreover, it would be very difficult to find a TV presenter or journalist who is completely apolitical and who does not hold strongviews – as likely as finding a human jellyfish.
So the criticism being made is not because Azzopardi is a card-carrying Nationalist and helped another fellow Nationalist in the latter’s hour of need. It’s not that at all. But there’s one precept of ethical journalism which Azzopardi has ignored, which makes his actions suspect. That’s the rule about disclosure.
If he wants to retain his reputation as a benign presenter, providing a level playing field to all guests (of whatever political persuasion) on his show, he can’t run off and put on his hat of lobbyist and adviser to the PN, and not make every specific instance of his doing so, made known to the public.
Otherwise we could have a situation where we would not know which of Azzopardi’s guests have been aided by his media expertise. We would have no idea that he had rehearsed the programme set-up with Guest X and not Guest Y.
Why, Azzopardi could be instructing one politician about another’s weak spots, only to try and come across as a kindly TV presenter and not the same person who was advising one guest against another, a few minutes before the show.
If Azzopardi wants to wear the hat of TV presenter, he is free to switch it round and wear that of adviser to the PN, only he should have the decency to inform the public about it. Then we would know his position on any given issue. We would also have an indication that the issues set out for discussion on the national agenda (as they are on Xarabank) have been orchestrated and stage-managed by Azzopardi, and could judge accordingly.
It’s not enough for the public to know that Azzopardi is broadly sympathetic to one party or individual. Basic decency would requirehim to declare his interest and behind-the-scenes help in every specific case. Anything less would be misleading and deceptive.
And please, Azzopardi come off that martyr soap box, you’re not being criticised because you’ve expressed your inalienable right to help out Pullicino Orlando in his amateur dramatics to sink the Labour Party.
You’re being criticised because of your lack of transparency and strengthening the impression that most news items are manipulated by a select few who have a free hand on PBS, while the Broadcasting Authority dozes on.
Azzopardi’s involvement in the Mistragate coaching session raises questions about another aspect of the affair.
He says he chose to come down on the side of the angels – as it were – because he felt that Pullicino Orlando was being unjustly persecuted. On what basis did he come to this conclusion?
Did Azzopardi study the agreement signed by Pullicino Orlando, showing that he knew full well that a promoter was going to build a disco on his land in Mistra?
Or did he simply assume that whatever Pullicino Orlando was saying was the truth, simply because the MP was contradicting Alfred Sant?
If that was the case, Azzopardi has been shown up as having the investigative skills of a polyp and abysmal judgment.
It is poetic justice that with Azzopardi’s help, the Nationalist Party which he so evidently militates for, has been landed with such a dud.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt