Shoddy articles are making Yorgen Fenech Malta’s only prize-winning black sheep

From a reader of this blog

It is time that both the Times of Malta and the Sunday Times of Malta put an end to rehashing and adding on snippets of alleged scandals collected from random sources and linking them to individuals accused – but still awaiting trial. I say this with regard to what Jacob Borg wrote about Yorgen Fenech’s connection with a company that is being accused of corruption. This article appeared last Sunday.

It is clear that the motive behind this article is simply to strengthen and protect the position of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s cronies who carry on marching with that same thick hide of an armadillo. Jacob Borg’s allies have only one mission in life; one of imitating her style of perfidious blog-writing which was always subjective and never, never objective. At times, her writing bordered on indecency when invading her targets’ privacy and appeared to be spurred on not only by a degree of spite, but also by a degree of ignorance where any self-respecting journalist is taught to stir clear away. Otherwise, he/she would not qualify as a professional journalist.

With Jacob Borg’s metrics in journalism, hacks should now start writing articles on all those businessmen and businesswomen who may have operated or carried out business deals with companies accused by the media or the police for indulging in corrupt dealings! After all, it seems that Jacob Borg is not aware that the world of business is not carried out by one individual but through companies employing full-time personnel accordingly.  

Reading through Jacob Borg’s article on May 8 one finds that: ‘Many of the “files” have yet to be translated into prosecutions by the police’. Therefore, since the TOM and STOM believe they are the epitome of journalism in Malta could Borg, instead of being generic, elucidate which files precisely did he have in mind?

Elsewhere he writes:

‘The €2.5 million paid by Fenech’s offshore UAE company, Wings Investment, to oil traders Napag Italia, opens a window into the businessman’s secret entry into the fuel trading and bunkering business.‘

So Jacob Borg does know that Fenech owns Wings Investment. In fact, towards the end of the article, Borg states that Yorgen Fenech is involved in these companies. So what?  Yorgen Fenech is not the only businessman or individual who deals and owns companies in Malta and abroad. What right has anybody to state that Yorgen Fenech has secretly entered the fuel and bunkering business, as if businessmen now need to inform the Times and every Tom, Dick and Harry about their business activities. This type of journalism makes Yorgen Fenech appear as Malta’s only prize-winning black sheep.

Yet why does such a half-baked article deserve publication when the author is only out to compound mischief since he cannot roll up his sleeves to find out who owns World Bunker Supplies and Wings Investments when he actually knows who does? This is why I am stating that he is contradicting himself in his article and this is one of the reasons, among many, I am stating that this is shoddy journalism. It would have been wise had he remained silent until justice is properly served all round.

A good journalist would be capable of finding the answer instead of taking a short cut and turning to someone to whom he refers in this same article as a person allegedly being accused of fraud and money laundering. In fact, Mazzagatti’s reply to Jacob Borg’s question  is brilliant and the only intelligent bit in the whole article and I quote:

“Contacted for comment, Mazzagatti said he did not know who owned World Bunker Suppliers nor Wings Investments. Mazzagatti said Napag’s dealings with World Bunker Suppliers and Wings Investments were carried out by the commercial heads of the respective companies, therefore who owned the two companies in questions was never an issue that was looked into“.

Could Borg not have taken the trouble to contact the Commercial Heads to get the answer he is seeking?

Why keep on writing shoddy articles simply to condition and brainwash potential future jurors, the public and let alone the legal professionals who may not be able to rise above the glib?

Vagueness, at all times, can only be lethal.