Yesterday’s Sunday Times carried an article about the fact that Yorgen Fenech offered a birthday present to Rosianne Cutajar, when she was an MP. Manuel Delia went a step further stating that there was some form of sexual relationship between the two.
True or not, it is only natural for one to give a present to someone who is either a friend or lover. So where is the corruption in this instance? It is normal that certain presents by multi-millionaires are substantial. Yet, even here the facts do not tally. On one side, there is the implication that money was given in return for sexual favours. There were allegations in the media that the money was after the discourse she made at the Council of Europe. Then, we learn that the sum of money Rosianne Cutajar received in relation to the sale of a property in Mdina was not paid by Yorgen Fenech but by a certain Camilleri. Camilleri wanted the money back once the deal did not go through. Thus, where is corruption in this case? Which of the two stories is true? Or is this a smear campaign?
For sure, the money was not being paid from public funds or for political favours as has been falsely alleged in the press. And frankly who cares whether A gave B a present or B gave A a present, when there is no public money involved. This is material for gossip columnists.
The Times continued with its crusade. In today’s edition, we are given a brain storming heading “Rosianne Cutajar meticulously counted the property deal cash with her father.” Who the hell cares with whom she counted the money? This is nothing more than gutter journalism.
It is time that we all get down to basics and make sure that instead of striking out left, right and centre without even getting down to issues with some substance, the media starts publishing what is really of news value. This holds also to stories involving the same politician Rosianne Cutajar. Why does the media not ask questions about the political support that Rosianne Cutajar had in Castile? It seems that since having lost much of their income through advertising, newspapers are resorting, more and more, to cheap and smutty sensationalism in the hope of increasing readership or of pleasing the riff raff claiming to be moralists of sorts, having nothing but innate hatred and little common sense left to guide them.
Were it not so, the mainstream media in question would show some rationality and not withhold printing news on a similar topic but for which we have irrefutable proof. The case in question is that of a lawyer and politician who not only is a proven adulterer but also a perjurer and continues to be the ’darling’ of the Catholic Church in Malta. Yet all is silent here. Why? Who is being paid to withhold publishing more stories about this politician which are a news item? There are stories which are graver than what has been alleged in the press this weekend.