FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
Journalist Ambrozia Meta faced an incident two days ago with Prime Minister Edi Rama, because the latter did not like her questions about his plans to give the island of Sazan to Donald Trump's son-in-law.
This incident caused an echo in the international media, which expressed solidarity with the journalist Ambrozia Meta, and meanwhile condemned the unethical gesture of Prime Minister Rama.
Invited to 'Çim Peka Live' Meta, the journalist said that she did not expect such an act from the prime minister, and was unprepared for this confrontation.
"Precisely because I had had these kinds of clashes in the past, I did not expect that the prime minister would go towards that act, given the relationship we have with each other, a relationship that has always been tense. Rama has reacted in an offensive, provocative way in all the cases where I have asked him, always trying for me to deal with him personally and not to continue to deal with other questions, and I, therefore, being unprepared, did not I was waiting" , said Meta.
She said that not expecting this gesture of the prime minister comes from the fact that their relationship does not go beyond the frames of the cameras, rejecting the claim of the prime minister that it was a friendly touch.
"I have a relationship that starts when the cameras come on and ends when the cameras come off. I have no confidence in the prime minister that he could address me in the kind of excuses he used afterwards, where he described it as a friendly touch. What I felt in those moments, and therefore I reacted instinctively, was a clearly low action, with the tendency to humiliate and denigrate", Meta said.
Meta expresses regret for this created situation, as well as for the successive insults that the prime minister returns in the form of answers from the questions she directs.
"I am very sorry that the situation became so big because I did not want to be mentioned and take such a prominent position. Also, I am sorry for the way the prime minister behaved afterwards. He went on the offensive, accused me of cheating or taking advantage of this situation, and even worse, used colleagues in the field trying to qualify them as witnesses when it was not a collective touch. It was a touch that he did to me, so it was not a touch that could come from the fact that he could have touched all my colleagues and now let's choose whether it was a caress, a caressing touch or an intimidating and humiliating touch, - just like I felt it", concluded the journalist.
Lini një Përgjigje