Why the PN keeps calling ONE “Super One”

Political language is never accidental. One of the most subtle — and most disrespectful, albeit effective — rhetorical strategies in politics is deliberate misnaming: saying a name “wrong” or using an outdated label to shape how the public perceives a person or institution.
This tactic is used globally, and increasingly visibly in Malta, particularly in how members of the Nationalist Party refer to ONE as “Super One.”
The question is not whether they remember the old branding. The question is why they insist on using it now.
Misnaming as strategy
Misnaming is a form of framing. It works on a psychological level:

The purpose is not accuracy, but control of perception.
Global parallels
United States – “Democrat Party”
Republicans intentionally say “Democrat Party” instead of “Democratic Party” to strip away the positive association of the word democratic. It is a linguistic attack disguised as a grammatical quirk.

United States – Kamala Harris & Zohran Mamdani

Political opponents repeatedly mispronounced Kamala Harris’s and Zohran Mamdani’s names — even after being corrected — to signal that they are “not from here.”
The message is: your identity is debatable.

United Kingdom – Calling Keir Starmer “Keith”

“Keith” is used mockingly to imply dullness or mediocrity. Again — the name becomes the argument.
India – Rahul Gandhi as “Shehzada”
Calling him shehzada (“prince”) frames him as entitled before any policy is discussed.
Across contexts, misnaming is used to pre-define the opponent, before they speak.

Malta: The revival of “Super One”

ONE rebranded long ag o with updated programming, digital formats, and contemporary editorial structure.
So when PN figures revive the old name “Super One,” it is not nostalgia.
It is strategic framing.

Examples.

Alex Borg

The leader of the Opposition does this repeatedly. Just recently in a social media post (about not accepting the ‘raise’ which he’s been receiving for the past year):

“Il-magna tal-gideb, is-Super One, ikompli jħarref.”
This is the tactic in pure form: Discredit the source → ignore the content.

Eve Borg Bonello

In another recent post:
“Segwuna waqt dibattitu dwar il-baġit fuq is-SuperOne.”
This pushes the message to younger audiences, ensuring the nickname survives generationally.

Bernard Grech

Grech has referred to ONE’s coverage as continuing:
“the Super One narrative.”
He doesn’t say the station’s name incorrectly — but he keeps the association active, reinforcing the internal talking point.

PBS Labelled as “Super One 2”
During a televised discussion on Xtra, a PN representative stated:

“PBS issa sar Super One 2.”

This is the clearest escalation. The point is no longer about ONE at all — it is about undermining trust in public institutions whenever narratives do not align with PN messaging.

Net News On-Air Habit

On NET, presenters frequently introduce stories with lines such as:
“Super One qal…”
“Kif Super One tipprova tagħti l-istorja…”
This creates repetition — the backbone of successful framing.

What PN gains from this

By reviving “Super One,” the PN attempts to:

1. Anchor ONE to a caricature
   → instead of engaging with its current work.
2. Pre-emptively discredit reporting
   → so any investigative story can be dismissed without refutation.
3. Use emotional labelling instead of factual dispute
   → easier to mock than to debate.
4. Turn media trust into a partisan battlefield
   → making voters distrust anything that challenges PN’s narrative.

This is disrespectful. And politically cynical.

Does it work?

In the short term: yes — among PN loyalists, it strengthens identity and shared grievance.
In the long term: the effect is weaker.
Younger or neutral voters tend to view:
• repeated nicknames
• refusal to say an institution’s actual name
• dismissive language

as petty, reactionary, disrespectful, and avoidant of substance.
In other words:
It rallies those already convinced.
It does not necessarily persuade those who are not.
Calling ONE “Super One” is not a joke or slip of the tongue.
It is a deliberate communication strategy designed to:
• diminish credibility,
• control emotional association,
• and avoid engaging with reporting on its merits.

But in a media environment where professionalism and clarity matter more than ever, refusing to acknowledge institutional evolution says more about the speaker than the target.
At a time when Malta’s political communication is modernising, some actors are still clinging to the vocabulary of old battles. And voters can hear the difference.