Peevski’s critics – on the wrong side of truthMonitor News Agency , Sofia
“Here’s what I don’t understand: how come any Tom, Dick and Harry think they have the right to choose the prosecutor general? Is it hereditary, some sort of genetic malformation or is it that only grant-funded people have this conviction?” This opinion in the comment section of one of oligarch Ivo Prokopiev’s media outlets tells you a lot, if not everything you need to know.
The comment can be found below a text entitled “Several observations on the prosecutor-general procedure” and authored by the rising star of the Institute for Market Economics Ivan Bregov. This pseudo-expert’s job consists of monitoring what is happening in Bulgaria with the sole purpose of “finding” connections to lawmaker and Telegraph Media publisher Delyan Peevski wherever possible. Where there is a will, there is a way, as they say – so even fabrications will do. This is certainly the case with this observer on the wrong side of truth. We have no idea what his problem with Peevski is, but there is a name for this kind of behaviour. It is an actual scientific explanation unlike the claptrap Bregov spews in the form of opinion pieces written specifically for the media battering rams in the Capital circle.
“It is just that Boyko Borissov and Delyan Peevski created the ultimate comfort for their respective ministers to not be asked certain difficult questions,” Bregov goes on a little lyrical detour in his piece about the selection of a new prosecutor general. His words are steeped in concern. We search for the reason behind his worry and find it in a medical diagnosis: “Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is an anxiety disorder characterised by uncontrollable, unwanted thoughts. When a person with OCD acts on these intrusive thoughts, they develop anxiety driven by the fear that something bad is going to happen if they don’t follow through with the compulsive actions. The patient feels compelled to perform time-consuming, irrational, repetitive behaviors to cope with the anxiety.”
The bad news is that the obviously sensitive and fragile Bregov is not treating his obsession, but indulging in it by defaming Peevski in the right media outlet for that purpose. “Ultimate comfort” is what follows. The editors working for Ivo Prokopiev know that this pseudo-analysis does not hold water, even structured as it is strictly following the appropriate talking points. However, they recognise the man on the wrong side of truth as one of their own and so go right ahead and copy-paste the text published in the weekly newsletter of the Institute for Market Economics.
Bregov’s thoughts are curious inasmuch as he obviously watched some other confirmation hearing. Geshev’s composure must have irked Bregov, because the latter furiously tries to compete with himself in discrediting Geshev by grasping for straws. Left without arguments with which to back the manufactured problem, the analyst inserts Peevski’s name by force of habit – because that is what sells with a certain audience.
It boggles the mind how and why this “analyst” came to his conclusions on certain talking points. Apparently, the “innocent until proven guilty” thing is just as foreign to him as it is to the people in the Capital circle. As a seasoned populist, the author is not ashamed of the support he gets from the media battering rams. Who transferred their obsessions to who is a question for another day. At this point, there is only one conclusion to be made – Peevski’s critics are on the wrong side of truth. They are sitting there, gesticulating wildly and shouting to be heard over the din. But their words burst like soap bubbles.
An obviously biased observer, who writes things like “the inconvenient questions of the minority of brave souls like Lozan Panov, Atanaska Disheva and Olga Kerelska”, Bregov also draws “a distinct demarcation line, showing his own willingness to confidently stand on one side of it”. Well, this must be market economy at its finest.