MaltaToday has an unfortunate habit of writing titles that have nothing to do or rather do not convey what their articles carry. This certainly seems evident in last Wednesday’s (10 February) edition with the article entitled ‘Culture pundits give draft policy the cold shoulder’.
There were pictures of three people interviewed in the article two of which, for obvious personal reasons gave a negative and narrow reading of the policy. On the other hand, one of the three pictured under the negative heading, Peter Serracino Inglott gave an objective view, and, what in my opinion, seemed a thumbs up to the draft policy. This is hardly what one would call giving the ‘cold shoulder’!
It is about time our local newspapers carry good and sensitive critical writing in relation to the arts. This includes the recommendation that the title reflects the content of what is being discussed, and that both – title and content – refrain from giving rise to mere speculation.
The article I refer to puts forward three opinions; one biased, one objective and in favour of the draft policy, and a third with the sole agenda of censorship. Shall we assume that three individuals that appeared in the article or the seven interviewed constitute the culture pundits in Malta? I have spoken to several individuals at the University of Malta that operate within the arts sector who claim that they were never ever asked for comments by Malta Today neither in this situation nor in any other before. This is a clear indication that your interviewees are always the same people with the same ideas. Hardly any attempt to show diversity of opinion. The comments of the people interviewed were ludicrously put under a negative heading that reflected only one part of the content of the article. How do people go about interpreting this?
How about a review of the policy, and of the policy launch, which are two distinctly different things? The article in your paper did not even mention one single word about the artistic event which preceded the actual discussion about the policy, or the discussion itself. It was only Lisa Gwen Baldacchino’s article appearing in the Times last Thursday (which unfortunately and for some strange reason never made it to the Times online) that gave a decent critical perspective on the draft and the launch event itself!
I fail to understand how one who completely ignores an artistic happening can be given attention and credibility with articles on the launch of the policy. Yes, it is indeed sad that artistic events are not given their due; it is high time that we acknowledge the arts as a serious sector considered as a profession by a good number of Maltese who invest time and money in them. This includes the area of art criticism. The draft Cultural Policy: Malta 2010 has tangible measures for improvement even in this area… Malta Today take note, read it!
Davinia Galea
Chair, Cultural Policy Working Group
Editor’s note: Mrs Galea omits to mention that of the seven (not three) persons contacted, four hadn’t even bothered reading the document, and of those who did only one can be said to have reacted positively. The headline was therefore more than justified. Furthermore, it is clear from her letter that Mrs Galea interprets any critical reading of a policy document she herself worked upon as an indication of ‘bias’. This alone should point towards where the real bias lies.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
