Once more, Lou Bondi's choices have become the topic of much heated debate. This time, it's not his experimenting with a highly gelled look (the general consensus on that being that it's too much of a 1930s Al Capone-like throwback which Bondi should ditch).
Nor is the topic of controversy related to his choice of music tracks to accompany the closing frames of the programme (We can live with Rod Stewart, and even though he's pushing it with Genesis, most think the music is the best part of the programme). This time, the subject of many conversations and the decision which drew most objections, was the choice of Bondi's guest - Norman Lowell.
The main objections voiced by many was whether it was advisable to give a platform to a man who thinks that physically or mentally impaired infants should be humanely exterminated within an hour of birth. Does having him on a prime time television slot expose him for what he really is, or does it bestow him with some sort of legitimacy? More on this later.
There's another interesting aspect to the whole business and it relates to whether the interest generated by this particular edition of the programme is a reflection on audiences themselves. Judging by the number of text messages I received and by the many online discussions, the programme was widely followed, probably far more so than previous editions, even though those were concerned with issues of greater substance.
Did the programme about the Delimara contract attract such a wide viewership? Did the yawn-inducing session with the deputy prime minister elicit such heated discussion? The impression I got was that they didn't. I do not have the figures at my finger tips, but I would be willing to bet that even hot topics like the one about the removal of the crucifix from state schools were not as widely followed.
This can point towards a number of conclusions. The first is that Maltese television audiences may shy away from programmes of a more technical nature, such as the one about the Delimara power plant extension. As confusing emissions data get bandied about and different fuel alternatives discussed, your average viewer may tend to drift away.
This is not necessarily a negative assessment of viewers, simply an observation about what makes for watchable television. Television is not the best medium for getting across large amounts of detailed information. It is better suited for giving us little pops of information, visual bullets, so to speak.
And television is hopeless for nuanced in-depth discussions. It's a medium which works best when appealing to the emotions, eliciting responses to the simplified, black-or-white choices which programme producers put across to us. Maybe this is a factor of the success (in viewership terms) of the Lowell programme.
People prefer to watch a straightforward villain/hero scenario (depending on your views on race and immigration), where Lowell rants away and displays his car bonnet paintings and generally acts like the racist bogeyman we can hate or the outsider who people support to cock a snook to authority. Would detailed statistics about the migration phenomenon play as well as a man brandishing a can and cockily telling Bondi that the daubs of colour he had splashed on canvas represented a raging bull raping cloistered nuns?
Would the portrayal of immigrants' living conditions in Malta and in their country of origin, be as entertaining? Would an analysis of the political parties' position on migration and forced repatriation be such a draw?
When you consider these factors, it's not surprising to see why Bondi invited Lowell along during a period when the topic of immigration is not very topical. Put yourself in his shoes. You can root around for a relevant subject (preferably one that puts the Labour Party in a bad light and hasn't already been done to death in previous editions), spend long hours carrying out tedious research, and then have a programme where people only wake up for the closing credits and Rod Stewart crooning away.
Alternatively, you could invite Lowell, choose choice extracts from a book which has been published for years, make a quick photomontage of black icons, and let Lowell do the talking. You'd be guaranteed a much wider audience with minimal effort, and if it was audience survey week, you'd be in with a winner.
Never mind the fact that you're providing a visibility platform for someone who spouts obnoxious and criminal views. That's just a tiny niggle to be ignored when you're in the business of producing 'Programmes People Watch'. I wonder if the earlier Bondiplus slogan 'Ġurnaliżmu Fuq Kollox' has been replaced. It would look like it.
The people who think it is advisable to provide Lowell with a platform would do well to note the experience of the British when far right BNP leader Nick Griffin was invited on the BBC's Question Time. Following his appearance on the programme, a Daily Telegraph poll suggested that 22 per cent of the electorate would "seriously consider" voting BNP. The party claimed that thousands of potential voters had registered for information following Griffin's appearance.
The BNP's webmaster, Simon Bennett, said: "By the end of the night, 9,000 new people had signed up as registered potential members or on our mailing lists. In the Euro elections, we gained 40,000 enquiries, but spent £500,000 to do so - on Question Time we spent peanuts but gained almost 25 per cent of the Euro election total in eight hours!
"We had to upgrade our server capacity enormously, which allowed us to cope with extra traffic." Did this possibility ever cross Bondi's mind?
As I watched the UK election results come in, I found myself feeling sorry for the politicians who had lost their seat and for the supporters who had campaigned so hard without any positive outcome.
It had me going back to one of my favourite books about politics at grassroots levels. Things Can Only Get Better by John O'Farrell, who describes 18 miserable years in the life of a Labour supporter - the 1979 to 1997 years when the party was floundering about in the political wilderness.
I love the hilarious way in which O'Farrell describes 18 years of supporting the losing side. It just goes to show that even the bleakest situation can bring forth laughs.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt