Daphne’s murder should not be used to empower journalists

Blog from a reader.

From a young age, Daphne Vella hated the Labour Party with a passion. She had valid reasons to do so. What may be in doubt is the intensity with which she conducted her ‘war’ that came over to me as being improper behaviour as anything that moved on the ‘enemy’ side became a legit target.

Her writing ability was exceptional and her thinking was lucid. A beautiful combination until weaponized in a ‘war’ footing context when the behaviour may have become intensely immoral and may account for a significant number of victims whose only crime was that of happening to be standing in her line of fire. Society needs to analyse to what extent this behaviour may have left deep indelible lacerations in the psyche of a small Nation.

Working night and day on what may seem to have become an obsessive need that required a network. The gossiping class was readily at hand to text her immediately as to who was eating a pizza, how, and where. A much smaller number, on the cutting edge of politics, had the ideal person at hand to use for the ‘next’ political move that would convert a hurried continental breakfast into a lavish breakfast banquet.

Yet Mrs. Daphne Caruana Galizia remained fiercely independent. She would never sit around a table with ‘nitwits’ discussing politics although you may have come across her sitting at a coffee table with her ‘echo chamber’ colleagues. And when she had time to put pen to paper without specific direction from the sharp political-minded ‘animals’, the toxic nature of her invective would be a cause of embarrassment to the Nationalist Party. When the Labour Party was elected to Government in 2013, the Nationalist Party worked on the assumption that Labour’s ‘inherent’ inabilities will cause its own downfall on the double as Mrs. Caruana Galizia moved to one side churning out all that is Labour, describing it as wicked. This was her mantra! Yet the Nationalist Party hope for a quick Labour Party implosion did not materialize as the Labour Party in Government performed well.

Without a plan B, the Nationalist Party was all out of its depth. The Daphne Caruana Galizia narrative was the only available option to hang on to. She was therefore allowed to move closer to ‘important’ persons manning a sinking ship. This looked as being a somewhat desperate move because it is well known that no election is won by simply degrading your opponent. The Nationalist Party lost the election by a huge margin. It may be interesting to note that the Nationalist Party still failed to restructure its political narrative needed for it to once again become a political force.

The deficient ‘war-footing’ policy seemed to have gathered around it a small number of vociferous endorsers. The Nationalist Party lost the next election with another embarrassing gap that had by now become apparently chronic illness. In the meantime, the Caruana Galizia ‘strategy’ seemed to have become radical among a small number of MPs and party supporters. This development was not lost on the delegates of the Nationalist Party who went against all formal and informal party sources to elect a person from outside the establishment to embark on the long and hard road to party reform.

Nonetheless, Mrs Caruana Galizia resisted the change with all her might (and ‘manoeuvres’). At this point, it became obvious to many that the type of ‘journalism’ that Mrs. Caruana Galizia represented was wide off the mark. A journalist must be seen to be keeping an objective from political endeavour and business.

Then her terrible murder happened. Then, the strategists fused the murder to her journalistic writings. In my opinion, this was a huge blow to journalism. Mrs Daphne Cachia Caruana cannot be a credible representative of what journalism, as a pillar of the democratic construct, should be. Using her tragic assassination as a reason to provide more power to a sick institution may ultimately destroy an already debilitating institution.

That is my view. In all sincerity, l hope that I am wrong but I fear that facts will prove me right.