Muscat's sermons and Gonzi's gospel

The Times suggests editorially (Labour Continues To Shoot At Its Own Feet, February 24) that Labour leader Joseph Muscat would have been more "effective, credible and trustworthy" if he would contribute "in" the efforts to take Malta out of the recession.

I suggest The Times too would be more "effective, credible and trustworthy" if it treated both party leaders equally in its criticism. Labelling Dr Muscat's speeches as "sermons", as it does in this editorial, and as it has done often before about Sunday addresses by Labour leaders, while treating Lawrence Gonzi's as excerpts from the Scripture, is hardly equal treatment. I am sure the editor of The Times will agree. The Times shoots itself in the foot by these obviously disparaging references to one party leader while reserving only praise for the other.

Can The Times give us an idea of what it has written about Dr Muscat's proposals on the economic and financial situation? Dr Muscat has made many such proposals; what did The Times think of them? Why did The Times not refer to them at all in this weak, one-sided and silly editorial? Did the proposals make him "credible" or did The Times, as usual, take biased pot shots at them?

Has The Times itself made any such efforts - because surely such efforts must be universal - or has it blindly rubber-stamped the government's policies, as it always does, offering no serious criticism to them, while ignoring Dr Muscat's, or trying to shoot them down?