This morning I woke up early to go for a walk and then rewarded myself with some Serkin Pastizzi. While waiting, I had a quick read at the back page of The Times and I was amused by the derivative article written by Louis Cilia titled “Let’s have a civilised debate, please.”
The article started out with the usual overview of campaigns past and then quickly shifted to campaigns present. In the middle of that it turned into a complete rant against bloggers. Yes BLOGGERS!
“Many bloggers enter into the personal lives of ordinary people as well as prominent, and not so prominent, personalities, often with the direct intention of destroying their credibility (and in consequence even of those associated with them, particularly their families). Some bloggers even degenerate into hate blogs. Political parties, more often than not, have turned a blind eye on these bloggers with the excuse that they have no control or jurisdiction over them.”
As a blogger I find this incredibly offensive. Sweeping statements like the above hurt those of us who want to share their opinion about the happenings of the political scene. Familiar with that thing called freedom of expression?
It is obvious Mr Cilia is referring to Daphne Caruana Galizia – there I said it (what a shocker). Why did DCG suddenly turn into a ‘she who will not be named’ character.
Mr Cilia mentions blogs like they are some kind of 21st century plague. Some of them might well be but don’t put all blogs under the ‘rotten’ category.
This generalised understanding of anything and everything is what’s really hurting us as a nation. Instead of having the balls to stand up and name and shame someone, we postulate so we don’t step on any toes. Instead of addressing a problem from its roots we just skim the surface and continue theorising. Instead of debating we just resort to sweeping assumptions. These are the things that groom this fear for debate, this apprehension towards asking questions.
It’s not the blogs Mr Cilia, it’s people like you, who are happy to vaguely point fingers but then fall short of making any form of worthwhile statement, that hurt the debate.