Malta’s public discourse in freefall

We live in contradictory times. This is the era of AI, wearable brain–computer interfaces and all sorts of extraordinary scientific inventions. Yet, certain negative developments should make us ask whether this is also the golden age of stupidity. For example, the United States – the country with the largest number of Nobel Prize winners by a very wide margin – is led by a narcissistic felon who denies climate change and gives power to anti-vaxxers.

We live in an era dominated by the most sophisticated means of communication, capable of trouncing both space and time. At the same time, the only certainty we have is that we cannot be certain that what is communicated to us is true.

We live in an era that enacts strict laws guaranteeing privacy. Yet, this is also an era dominated by technologies that make privacy an unattainable myth – if not a perversion – as Ben Elton described in his dystopic novel Blind Faith.

We live in an era where many believe that a basic requirement for a thriving democracy is the maxim that truth is not objective but it is subjective and socially constructed. Everyone has his own truth. Such a belief leads to the death, not the thriving, of democracy, for it encourages the downplaying of expert, informed and educated opinion – without which democracy cannot function.

Democracy was also harmed by the rise of savagely commercialised TV which reduced information to entertainment. In the 1980s, the US author Neil Postman warned us of the consequences:

“When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, then a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility.”

What started with commercialised TV climaxed through the social media.

A common consequence results from all these developments: intelligent, reasoned and compassionate public discourse is shrivelling up. 

We live in the era of the globalisation of shrivelled public discourse dominated by self-opinionated dilettantes called influencers. This is an era “that creates the illusion of knowing something but which in fact leads one away from knowing” (Postman).

Umberto Eco famously warned that social media had “given legions of idiots the right to speak” but the deeper problem is not merely noise – it is the erosion of expertise. As psychotherapist Austin ‘Ozzie’ Gontang put it: “We gave everyone a voice – and forgot to value expertise.”

The result is a digital chorus in which confidence substitutes for knowledge and instant reaction replaces careful thought. This development is profoundly harmful for democracy. When every opinion is treated as equal, the public sphere becomes a theatre of impulsive judgements rather than a space for informed reflection. And when the loudest voices drown out the most competent ones, justice itself becomes vulnerable to distortion.

Consider, for example, the current social media commentary surrounding the trial for the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia. One of the most disturbing features of the social media debate about this trial has been the flourishing of self-opinionated commentary online. People with no legal background, no access to the full evidence and no understanding of judicial procedure pronounce daily verdicts based on partial newspaper reports.

Umberto Eco famously warned that social media had given legions of idiots the right to speak- Fr Joe Borg

Their comments muddy the waters and risk discrediting the prosecution’s thesis that the person on trial – innocent till proven guilty – is the mastermind. The Daphne Foundation has clearly outlined the risks inherent in encouraging the belief that there were multiple masterminds behind the crime.

The phenomenon of instant, self-appointed “experts” is not new but this trial has magnified it. It is yet another example of the collapse of serious public discussion in Malta.

As I argued in my commentary in this paper titled ‘The fruitful appreciation of complexity’, we no longer have an agora; we have silos.

People do not converse – they pontificate. They do not argue – they sloganise. They do not listen but interrupt. They dogmatise their beliefs and utter anathemas. Those who dare to disagree are vilified with personal abuse rather than confronted with well thought out arguments.

A quote generally attributed to the American documentary filmmaker Albert Maysles could serve as a diagnosis of our condition: “Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.” Malta’s public debate has been stripped of nuance for years. The result is a society where complexity is treated as suspicion, disagreement as betrayal and slogans as substitutes for arguments.

Harvard president Alan Garber put it succinctly: “Truth is rarely found in echo chambers.” Yet, Malta increasingly lives inside them. The fragmentation of our public sphere means that even the most serious national events are filtered through partisan lenses. Every event becomes not a moment of shared reflection but another battleground for entrenched tribes.

What can be done?

A discussion of the systemic causes of this sad state of affairs – and how to remedy them – is beyond the scope of this commentary. I will react only on a personal level.

My gut reaction is to despair. My tongue in cheek suggestion would be to propose legislation making it illegal for anyone with an IQ below 10 to comment on social media. Really and truly, this would reduce these platforms to comment-less deserts.

Yet, these spaces are too important to be abandoned. And the people who write all sorts of objectionable or inane comments do not lose their basic dignity for doing so.

For these reasons I resist the temptation to surrender to cynicism.

The real solution is not to silence the foolish but to strengthen the wise. Not to shrink the conversation but to elevate it. Not to curse the darkness but to kindle the small lights of reason, compassion and truth wherever we stand. If we choose this path of patient, courageous  and charitable speech – then, even in these contradictory times, we may yet find that hope has the final word.