Why haven’t the Times’ journalists first read the long sentence of Magistrate Joe Mifsud before commenting on his sentence?

Without a shadow of a doubt journalists at the Times of Malta are becoming more judgemental than ever. They are incredibly quick in passing sentence on anything that wokeness now makes them believe they have the right to do so. However, despite no longer being in diapers, these journalists lack the acumen to put their common sense – one would hope they had acquired it over the years – to good use. Instead, they prefer to just stamp their feet protesting about anything and anybody before even having taken the trouble to check and double check facts before putting pen to paper.  

Let’s take a recent example. Herman Grech and Claire Farrugia wrote a piece that proves my point. The title reads Miriam Pace’s widower laments ‘lenient’ sentence but seeks no ‘vendetta’. This title does not correspond to fact since Pace’s lawyers, both Joe Giglio and David Bonello, issued a statement on their Facebook page, on behalf of their client to publicly declare the following:

Referring to the sentence handed down in the Magistrates’ court this morning regarding the accident in which Miriam Pace lost her life, the Pace family wishes to stipulate that it never wanted a vendetta and consequently not even when asked what sentence should have been meted out it [the family] never suggested that the architects ought to go to prison.

Why have the Times ignored these statements and instead carried out an article which makes it seems that Mr. Pace (Miriam Pace’s widower) is contradicting his own lawyers?

The Times then carries on writing that the 880 hours of community service imposed for the involuntary homicide was too lenient. Who are they to decide when they write half-baked accounts?  The crux lies in the fact that if they pride themselves on being journalists of some standing – Grech is also Editor of the paper – why did they not take the trouble, however taxing, to first read the 98-pages wherein lies the full explanation as to the whys and wherefores that led the Magistrate to reach such a verdict?

Didn’t these journalists realize that this was the first time architects are being given community work after found guilty of involuntary murder? Did the journalists in question forget that when there was that accident on the construction of the Seabank Hotel at Għadira and a foreign worker died, the architect in question was not given any community work? Instead, he was handed a suspended sentence.

Indeed, had they taken the time to read and study the decree, they could have come up with a decent piece of reporting instead of the immature gibberish we have been fed, which is not even fit to be carried in a Newsletter run by students.

How long can the Times of Malta carry on operating in this fashion before it is forced to close shop because of its puerile and biased reporting?   

One thought on “Why haven’t the Times’ journalists first read the long sentence of Magistrate Joe Mifsud before commenting on his sentence?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *