Inside the Royal Gazette

An anonymous letter to the Editor appears in the 28 March edition of the Royal Gazette (RG). The letter writer, who signs him/herself “For an open and free press” takes to task the Premier and others who complained about the RG’s coverage of the three Regiment soldiers arrested for marijuana possession. The letter writer does an analysis of that entire issue of the RG in order to show that the complaints were unfounded.

I have my own opinion about the fairness of the RG’s coverage, which I will leave for another time. However, my reason for this post is to comment solely on the issue of anonymous writers-to-the-Editor. Yes, I know, I am going to hear from quite a few in defense of the practice. I am not saying that no one should ever write anonymously. It does seem to me, though, that the writer of such a thorough and constructive presentation of the RG’s page by page content would have little reason to do so anonymously, unless…

Without a signature, one could reasonably speculate that the writer was the Editor himself, or that he assigned one of his reporters to do the job. (The letter does seem to be from the pen of someone who has more than a passing interest in defending the RG.) Of course editors have every right to defend the integrity of their papers. They should, however, do so forthrightly. If the writer of the letter is someone associated with the newspaper, what is to gain by hiding it?

One possible gain is the same letter writer could pen multiple letters using different pen-names, thus creating an image of widespread support for a single point of view. Another is the additional weight given to support from writers outside the organisation in question — one tends to assume a writer would declare interest if one existed.

One could also speculate that the letter writer is a political partisan and is using the opportunity to score partisan points. Other speculations of a racial or ethnic bias could also creep in, justified or not.

I accept there are times when anonymity is warranted, for example if a Civil Servant was blowing the whistle on unethical or illegal conduct (though I would prefer this be handled by codified protection for whistle-blowers). However, the use of anonymity to thwart transparency is, in my view, a relic of darker times, and should be abandoned.

Comments

[stuart J Hayward on 30.03.06 at 00:49]

Bill Cook writes:
“A personal attack is is valid if it is easily substantiated and not libelous.”

I don’t agree. If we are discussing issues then it seems to me that personal attacks are out of place. Labeling or denigrating a person is not an acceptable alternative to making points on the issue.

“When one puts themselves on the public forum thats a risk they assume.”

I assume a risk to the validity of my ideas, yes. But I don’t expect I will be violated.

“They should be accorded the opp to defend their position but are not entitled to protection.”

I agree that their ideas or positions should not be protected, but I believe their person should be. Persons playing chess should not have to worry that they’ll be punched up as part of the game.

“If one was a 90lb weakling and made a derogatory remark albeit a truthful one about a 250 lb bully they would be very foolish to print their own name unless they had a death wish !!!”

Let’s first substitute “critical” for “derogatory”. Then let’s remember that in the move from barbarians to civilians, we accepted that MIGHT ought not automatically be RIGHT — I think we called it justice. The powerless ought not be silenced by the powerful.

[stuart J Hayward on 30.03.06 at 01:35]

ap writes:
“People write anonymous letters critising the government because of the character of this government. They routinely make vailed threats against anyone or any organization that questions them. I think people feel that it's just not worth the chance, no matter how remote, that someone in the government will pardon my language, decide to fuck with them. This is especially true if you work or have relatives with the same last name, that work for the government."

This should not be. We must move away from the use of fear and intimidation to keep people in line.

Beside that point, however, the writers’ of anonymous letters are known by someone(s), and that someone can divulge that information. Such potential for abuse ought to be minimised.

[stuart J Hayward on 30.03.06 at 01:37]

hypocrit writes:
“Mr. Hayward has an axe to grind with the Royal Gazette/Mid Ocean News that he would be wise to declare. Care to reveal your indiscretions during the election campaign of the early 90s Mr. Hayward or shall I?”

Ahah, a veiled threat in the flesh. At least I shall have the right of reply to any allegations of “indiscretions” posted to this forum, a right I was denied in the press back then. So fire away.

“Mr. Hayward's motivations are entirely germaine to this discussion and his constant attempts to disparage RG/MON.”

You flatter yourself to think you know my motivations.

And I am entitled to critique the institution. The institution is likewise entitled to defend itself. The credibility of the institution’s defense is, however, on display. If the institution must resort to threats to reveal “indiscretions” as part of its defense, then we all now have a clearer view of the institution and its methods.

Intimidation as a tool to silence critics is not dead.

[Silencio on 30.03.06 at 06:19]

{FOR AN OPEN AND FREE PRESS Wrote:
"Mr. Editor, you clearly stirred up a hornets nest so I decided to read that particular issue of The Royal Gazette, dated 23rd March, from cover to cover to see just how biased you really are against young black men and women, and the PLP Government."

I think this is where he slips up. His evidence cannot determine "how biased" the Gazette is. Too bad, because his counter-argument to the detractors he quotes is still valid. Also, he's not exactly arguing that the Gazette is NOT biased against "young black men and women, and the PLP Government" as some seem to suggest he was.}

Let's not play dumb, Michaal. If you aren't being anal about it, the points lead directly to that conclusion that the paper isn't biased in the same way the Premier Scott foolishly proposed that it is biased. Both arguments were weak, terribly so.

"Intimidation as a tool to silence critics is not dead."

Yes Stuart, but don't tell those defenders of all things conservative/UBP that such exercises of power ever existed. It's all in your head.

Like I said above, all I need to know about RG is the Hester story on Dr. Johnson. What they did there was just disgusting. I really felt sorry for the man, especially if the book reads like the cover, per se.

[Bill Cook on 30.03.06 at 06:39]

Well now,

If we lived in a perfect world rather than the one we actually live in things would be different.

We dont they are not.

Recall not so long ago at a meeting to discuss Status for long term residents.

Some brave souls not maybe 90 lb weaklings stood up ie school teachers policemen nurses etc to have a say in being granted status after 20 30 40 yrs residency.

The vile attacks on these work permit holders was an example of the risk as actual physical threats were made along with disgraceful verbal abuse.

Mrs Cox said it was a good way for Bermudians to let off steam how it was for the LTR was not discussed.

My take on personal attacks all depend on your definition of same ie if your behaviour is unethical but not illegal it may be the only way to counter societal harm by that behaviour, there would have to be a valid reason to make personal charges as the alternative seems to let it go unchallenged.

Being challenged is not in my opinion being violated depending perhaps on ones sensitivity or in some instances perhaps a sense of paranoi and a tendency to see something personal that may not even be directed to one.

I have spent a considerable amount of time on the subject of Justice and found/find it to be elusive esp if one is in a weak position to defend themselves and the administration of justice very uneven and at times even incomprehensible, but that may be just me of course.

The powerless should not be silenced by the powerful ?

Yes but they are of course all the time, this is not Utopia and we are not unique it happens all over.

Its why we have trade unions and dont have children going down mines etc.

We have workers here at the moment from the poorer countries being exploited but afraid to speak up for fear of losing their job etc.

The problem is that very few bother to say much if it does not directly affect them I feel

[Phil on 30.03.06 at 08:12]

Stuart

If the institution must resort to threats to reveal “indiscretions” as part of its defense, then we all now have a clearer view of the institution and its methods. Intimidation as a tool to silence critics is not dead.

You seem to be assuming that hypocrit is a member of the Royal Gazette or MON. That may be a reasonable suspicion, however there's another possibility. He or she could equally be someone with an axe to grind with the RG/MON, and has chosen to make it look as if that institution is resorting to intimidation to silence you.

While hypocrit remains anonymous, his or her own motivations remain suspect.

[stuart J Hayward on 30.03.06 at 09:10]

Limey writes:
"You seem to be assuming that hypocrit is a member of the Royal Gazette or MON. That may be a reasonable suspicion, however there's another possibility. He or she could equally be someone with an axe to grind with the RG/MON, and has chosen to make it look as if that institution is resorting to intimidation to silence you.

While hypocrit remains anonymous, his or her own motivations remain suspect."

You are corect about my assumption. Your alternate possibility never occurred to me. This does illustrate the tangle that can arise from anonymity.

[Michael Taylor on 30.03.06 at 09:45]

Sorry Silencio. I disagree. But of course, I'm one of these people who's always caught up on facts and reality. How anal.

[stuart J Hayward on 30.03.06 at 09:46]

Bill Zuill writes:
“… for the record, the writer of the letter is in no way associated with The Royal Gazette.”

We’ll have to take your word on it. And I do. However, my point remains that, barring the editor’s word, readers have no way to know what association the letter writer has or does not have, and all that is left to do is speculate.

“As for the idea that I have so little integrity that I would do it myself and not put my name to it ... or that I would have one of my reporters do it (or that they would agree to do it), well, it leaves me speechless and I am mortified that my old friend Stuart would think so little of me that he would even speculate on that point.”

I have already confirmed my belief in Bill Zuill’s personal integrity. I regret not having included that belief in my original post. Let me also say that I believe The Royal Gazette has become a fairer newspaper under Bill Zuill’s editorship. However, the risk inherent in the editorial decision (assuming this is a policy decision made by the editor) to publish anonymous letters is that it opens the entire spectrum of speculation. I chose to highlight one end of the spectrum to illustrate the point.

[SmokingGun on 30.03.06 at 12:02]

"Bill Cook writes:
“A personal attack is is valid if it is easily substantiated and not libelous.”
I don’t agree. If we are discussing issues then it seems to me that personal attacks are out of place. Labeling or denigrating a person is not an acceptable alternative to making points on the issue." - stuart J Hayward.

Stuart - I have to agree with Bill on this. A simple example being if Joe Blogg gets sent off to jail for doing something bad and the facts are laid bare for the public to see then he's fair game to be called a scumbag in the papers. And if they get out of jail and decide to run for politics then they have to carry that burden when going into debate.

But as far as discussing or debating issues without such predispositions then of course you are correct. Besides if someone has to resort to personal attack then they've pretty much conceded the argument.

[SarahT on 30.03.06 at 12:12]

Wow. The conspiracy theories are just exhausting. This kind of thing is especially frustrating reading as a former Royal Gazette reporter. No offence to Bill, but there were times when I was practically begging for someone to give me SOME kind of direction on a story and I'd get nothing. I can think of certain RG columnists who experienced the same trouble when they first started writing for the Gazette - a lack of direction from Bill. In fact I pretty much did what I wanted at the Gazette, apart from any diary events like Plea Court or Government press conferences of course. And I personally have no agenda regarding the UBP or the PLP, they're about equal in my eyes. Of course I was never writing editorial pieces, only news pieces, but still. It seems like I could say that I was never influenced as a reporter by any agenda on behalf of the paper's management til I'm blue in the face, and people would still insist that the RG has some horrific UBP/conservative agenda and the editors are forcing reporters to write biased stories. We are all too aware of how imperfect the paper can be, after all its mistakes are out there for the country to see - I won't pretend it's the ideal newspaper. I made plenty of disastrous mistakes while I was there. But there is a huge leap between making mistakes, even big ones, and conspiracy theories. So I'm interested to know - people like Rossini should spell it out for me. What can the RG do to make you believe that it isn't out to get you?

[jake on 30.03.06 at 13:47]

SarahT,

I would suggest that you live in a utopia of your own conceit if you expect us to believe that you and other writers at the RG did not have the biases that infect every part of our society.

I look at the way people routinely make errors in context, for example in today's RG, the allegation against Terrance Smith is that he was spending "pounds". Of course he was spending dollars, a minor error, which did not lesson the validity of the story about Smith, but did reveal the writer's own background and influence.

People write far more negative associations in their quest for the front page. Jeannine Klein Menzies has displayed her own bias with her quest to investigate Dr. Johnson. I was ashamed to be a Bermudian that day. We invite this guy to our country because he is an accomplished surgeon. We ask him to serve on an unpaid Government Board (which he does) and then we insult him publically. At the root of this is the fact (I am convinced) that he is black. Why do I think this? I think it because the last Dr. in charge, Dr. Froncioni, also an acomplished surgeon, was never subjected to this kind of scrutiny. Never. I am sure he is as upstanding a citizen as Dr. Johnson, but as a country we have still not gotten to the point where the need to malign public figures is outweighed by the need to encourage good people to participate.

What he did:

November 3, 1999 the County of San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department cited Dr. Johnson for driving with a suspended license, expired registration, no registration in his vehicle and no proof of insurance. He pleaded guilty to the latter three charges and paid a fine.

July 21, 2000, San Bernardino officers cited Dr. Johnson for failing to obey a red signal light.

September 6, 2000, San Bernardino sheriffs pulled him over again and cited him for failing to stop at a stop sign and passing on the right.

July 31, 2001, Dr. Johnson was cited for driving while his licence was suspended and no proof of insurance. Both counts were dismissed “in the interest of justice”.

(Jake note: Does that mean perhaps he was 'not guilty' or that the court felt it was not appropriate to jump on a young surgeon who during residency may not have had all his papers in order?)

When we insult serious professionals like this, we make it all the more likely that others will not put their hat forward.

We are a petty little country.

[Michael Taylor on 30.03.06 at 13:53]

"SarahT,

I would suggest that you live in a utopia of your own conceit if you expect us to believe that you and other writers at the RG did not have the biases that infect every part of our society."

Do we really need to talk like this?

[Phil on 30.03.06 at 13:56]

Since Dr. Christopher Johnson is head of the Road Safety Council, I see nothing wrong in the Royal Gazette choosing to question his suitability for the post because of his past driving misdemeanours. Especially when it involved driving while suspended and with no insurance. That's a little more serious than a few speeding tickets.

How would you feel if the head of the Coalition for the Protection of Children was a convicted paedophile?

[Phil on 30.03.06 at 14:02]

jake

At the root of this is the fact (I am convinced) that he is black. Why do I think this? I think it because the last Dr. in charge, Dr. Froncioni, also an acomplished surgeon, was never subjected to this kind of scrutiny.

Perhaps Dr. Froncioni was subject to this kind of scrutiny, but he simply does not have any prior driving convictions? Unless you know for a fact that Dr. Froncioni does, I find it surprising that you would leap to the conclusion that race was the motivating factor.

[Raptor on 30.03.06 at 14:13]

Jake, I disagree with you on this one. Someone who is head of the Road Safety Council absolutely should not be there with infractions like these:

November 3, 1999 the County of San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department cited Dr. Johnson for driving with a suspended license, expired registration, no registration in his vehicle and no proof of insurance. He pleaded guilty to the latter three charges and paid a fine. July 21, 2000, San Bernardino officers cited Dr. Johnson for failing to obey a red signal light. September 6, 2000, San Bernardino sheriffs pulled him over again and cited him for failing to stop at a stop sign and passing on the right. July 31, 2001, Dr. Johnson was cited for driving while his licence was suspended and no proof of insurance. Both counts were dismissed “in the interest of justice”.

These are the times Dr. Johnson got caught! With a driving record like this, I find myself guessing he might drive like this all the time. I’ve been victimized financially by uninsured drivers. It’s not pretty. If you want to put a car on the road, you’ve got to follow the laws. I don’t care what colour he is, he should not be head of any Road Safety Council anywhere. There must be some other council he'd be more suited to.

[SarahT on 30.03.06 at 14:27]

Jake - I can't really offer you any intelligent or worthwhile comment on the Dr. Johnson stuff as I have no idea what the story is behind that story (I did leave the Gazette and the country last May and haven't been following the news as well as I should). But your comment not only makes me sad, coming from you - I've always respected your views on this forum because you seem to be able to see beyond the nonsense most of the time - it also illustrates the futility of any attempt to argue the RG (specifically RG reporters) does NOT have the biases that people claim. I believe it's a legitimate news story and I believed that before I learned - through your post, by the way - that Dr. Johnson is black. But how can the RG ever prove to you that the story was not done because Johnson is black, but because it was the opinion of the paper that it's a legit story? You obviously don't think it was and that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. It's just that unfortunately that means you start searching for a reason for the story to be run even though it's not legit, and it always comes down to the race/anti-PLP issue. I can't think of any way for the RG to prove to you that it was not about race but about a fact that they believed the public was entitled to know. You will never believe them. What can they do?

This is where the frustration comes in - as a reporter I was involved in stories when people would yell and claim I was pushing a UBP agenda when frankly I hadn't even spoken to the UBP about that story and couldn't care less about their opinion on it. Case in point: the release of the BIC report and the comment about there being no instance of a referendum found. As soon as I questioned a member of the BIC about that comment I was cursed and told that I am pushing the UBP/RG agenda. Not only had I not spoken to the UBP OR the editor about that question yet, I am still unclear how on earth that was not a legitimate question to ask. How can you ever get to the truth when people are so off base on something as basic as this?

I mean, most of the reporters at the paper aren't even Bermudian and have nothing at all invested in PLP or UBP. So to claim that they have a UBP or a white agenda is - well, let's just say it's a massive leap of logic. All racist British UBP-supporting journalists ended up at the RG? It's a little far-fetched, don't you think?

Of course everyone brings their own little biases to things - we're only human. But again, for the stories that I did and the experience I had with the Gazette, I maintain that I could sit here and tell you over and over again that I am not a racist, do not have any political agenda, and in fact really just tried to put Bermuda first, forget the politicians. And you are not going to believe me. I just want to know what you think could be done about that, because if something isn't done then this stalemate could go on forever.

I do agree with your last point too - we are indeed a petty, petty country. We have our good points though - ie we can at least talk about these things - so let's not forget that!

[Ethiops on 30.03.06 at 14:28]

It’s far more wrong if anything to have high expectations from people. Are they competent in their job should be the main thing. The laws are written to be followed as written. So, in that case even someone who is head of the council of safety laws can have the chance to break them. Should he/she be caught then they get to pay dues for their harms done. Comparing this to having a paedophile as head of the coalition of children is a bit much.

Personally I like the idea of a person not so pristine clean that gets in trouble, it let’s the rest see that they too can get caught.

[JJ on 30.03.06 at 14:36]

I was surprised that it only took 62 posts before someone played the race card on this topic. Must be a record.
Also, surprised it was Jake.

[Rossini on 30.03.06 at 14:43]

SarahT, in response to your question, the RG can be accurate in its reporting and fair for a start. From its selection of front page stories to its Editorials, it is simply biased and offensive to intelligent and discerning people. For example...what does this mean "This newspaper may not always agree with Dr. Brown's policies but its hard to argue with results." That's from an Editorial...was it so difficult to say...well done Dr. Brown ? Virtually every report from the House or the Senate leads with some member of the Opposition's assumption or position on an issue. It is then followed by the government's position...even if the government member led the debate.The effect is to always make the government look reactionary or on the defensive......very clever I'll admit. Kim Swan made a mockery out of the Senate budget Debate....he lumped so much together that it was ridiculous and left people little time for constructive debate. Has that ever been mentioned even in the pitiful attempts at satire in Hector ? Not a word.I expect the gazette to fulfill its mission to get the UBP re-elected. That's not a problem, but don't keep bleating on about how honest and fair you are...its insulting to those of us who know the truth. At least the MidOcean is honest in who they support or despise.

[jake on 30.03.06 at 14:56]

"I believe it's a legitimate news story and I believed that before I learned - through your post, by the way - that Dr. Johnson is black. "

If you learned that from me it is because you missed the headline front page story with his photograph attached. It also means that you missed the Hester photo essay lampooning his facial expressions (6 photos I believe). I don't think you are lying, nor do I place the blame for the story at your feet, SarahT. On reflection my first sentence was harsh, but my point remains that you are as affected by bias as anyone, and the fact that the majority of reporters are not from Bermuda is obvious when you are black and they (the majority) are not.

As for JJ and the oft quoted Race-Card - I saw the article as racially motivated, so I described it as such. Perhaps you did not. I can only wonder why.

Phil,

How you can credibly compare a child molester to a speeding ticket or even no insurance / license (which, by the way can happen easily and without intention on the behalf of the driver. Insurance Company policies state that they will invalidate cover if your license is out of date - ergo no insurance, if you have forgotten to renew. The reason the courts look at this on a case by case basis is because an expired license is different from a disqualified license, or no license at all, particularly where time of expiration is relevant) is so far beyond me that you must be a Limey to understand.

For me it is a matter of magnitude. Most drivers have at some time committed the red light/stop sign infraction. Many have let licenses expire without realising it.

I doubt many child molesters found themselves abusing children by accident.

Absent a drunk driving charge there is no reason to dig into Dr. Froncioni's record. That was the point. He is an accomplished surgeon helping people who volunteered his time. I am grateful to him, and see no need to justify the shameful treatment doled out to Dr. Johnson by doing a similar hatchet job on him.

[SmokingGun on 30.03.06 at 14:58]

Jake - I too am a little surprised you were down Sarah T's throat on this.

And I too have only learned that Doc Johnson is black from your post. After hearing what a bad driver he is and based on the fact that he was driving whilst suspended I just thought the guy must have been someone who put himself up for the position because of some sort of bizzare ego trip. Never even occured to me to think what the colour his skin was.

But the fact is your driving record follows you around. So it's kind of weird that he chose to head up the "Road Safety Council". Maybe he actually was only signing up for a class and they figured since he was the only one who showed up - make him the chief.

But getting back to the RG. What I don't get is why are there so many little typo-type and mis-worded mistakes. Is the proof-reader hanging out at the Robn Hood just before going to press? I think just getting the little things corrected would help keep the wolves at bay.

And for the record. Mr. Zuill has been kind enough to print 99% of my letters and I can assure you they are neither pro UBP nor anti-PLP.
But they certainly question all those who choose to make decisions that affect us all.

[jake on 30.03.06 at 15:03]

Ok, for the record:

I am sorry SarahT. I was over the top calling you conceited.

I still see the Johnson story in the light expressed above, and find it sad that none of you even knew, what so many people in the black community found shocking and sad.

Now you know.

[loki on 30.03.06 at 15:12]

"Absent a drunk driving charge there is no reason to dig into Dr. Froncioni's record. That was the point. He is an accomplished surgeon helping people who volunteered his time. I am grateful to him, and see no need to justify the shameful treatment doled out to Dr. Johnson by doing a similar hatchet job on him."

Amen, Jake. Whilst I don't view the Dr. Johnson article as being racially motivated, it was a mean-spirited and sensationalist hatchet-job on a guy trying to offer his services to the community. I truly struggle to see what the public interest aspect was in printing that article.

[SmokingGun on 30.03.06 at 15:29]

In better light - yes it was sensationalist and unneccesary to a great degree. But it's based on facts so there is some credibility to it.

Jake - I hear what you are saying. It is sad if there are those who will pre-judge because of the colour of one's skin. Unfortunately I feel we are going through a period of cynical skepticism and mis-trust that falls on all our shoulders. It's not a good place to be.

[Yet Another Limey on 30.03.06 at 15:33]

I have prejudices and a political persuasion, as do we all, and when I write anything it’s probably skewed to some degree by that.

So when the majority of the editorial staff of a newspaper is of one particular race and political persuasion, it’s not a huge surprise that it shows from time to time.

[JJ on 30.03.06 at 16:43]

Jake said "As for JJ and the oft quoted Race-Card - I saw the article as racially motivated, so I described it as such. Perhaps you did not. I can only wonder why"

But why do you see it as racially motivated? Motivated to do what ? It seems to me that a candidate for the road safety job should at least have a decent driving record. I wouldn't want Ted Kennedy nominated either.
You sound like the McCarthyites of the 50's who saw communists everywhere. You see racists everywhere. I reiterate that I am surprised that you Jake, who is usually so clear thinking about most issues would suggest it's racially motivated. Sorry don't get it.

[Onion on 30.03.06 at 17:23]

Sarah T, whilst you and your colleagues may not have had a personal agenda, one way or another, let's not be naive about the media in this country. Come now, let's be real. The RG has for decades displayed an uncanny leaning against blacks and the PLP in this country. It was very bad under David White. Not as bad with Zuill but there are significant remnants of bias.

Sarah, the fact that you were not pushed to write one way or another is really neither here nor there. It is not just the content of a story that impacts public opinion. It is the placement of those stories. Eg. The writer of the letter to the editor concerning the regiment made mention that the RG does post positive stories about black people. No-one disputes this. But it is the front page headline that does the damage. "REGIMENT SOLDIERS ARRESTED" as opposed to "REGIMENT TROOPS WORK HARD IN JAMAICA." I would not have even minded if both stories shared the front page. At least the news would be balanced for once. Oh, and how about the cute little insert under the headline: "Premier blasts newspaper over regiment story, see page 7". Cute, very cute Zuill. Relegate it to the back pages just to show P who is The Man!

Generally it is the editor that is responsible for placement of stories. It is the placement of stories that affect public opinion even more than content. The fact that most of the journalists are second rate expats (yes, second rate!) with little or no understanding of Bermudian culture only enhances the negative perception many people have of the paper.

The MidOcean, it's first cousin, is even worse. What PLP dirt will they find for tomorrow's headline? Every week we are treated to some juicy anti-PLP or anti-black gossip. It even makes the editor of the National Enquirer blush.

How often do we see any white businessmen or politicians being maligned on the front page? Is this just a coincidence Sarah? On oversight perhaps? Maybe white people don't commit crimes or get into trouble.

[tilti on 30.03.06 at 17:33]

Onion, if all the expats writing for the RG are so 'second rate', then why don't you go and write for the paper and try and bring about some change yourself?
Or, why not encourage young Bermudians to write for the Gazette?

[Rossini on 30.03.06 at 17:33]

Onion has a great point...the Lines story and the LOM misfortunes just can't seem to make it back to the front pages anymore.....I guess we're supposed to be content with the first wave in 2002 and the p.27 Business headlines since then....

[Phil on 30.03.06 at 17:55]

I agree with tilti: if you think the RG and/or the MON are anti-black and/or anti-PLP, you are entitled to your views. But what are you going to do about it?

Onion

The MidOcean, it's first cousin, is even worse. What PLP dirt will they find for tomorrow's headline? Every week we are treated to some juicy anti-PLP or anti-black gossip.

I'd just like to point out this story, which was at the top of page 1 in the March 17 edition of the Mid Ocean.

I'd also like to hear some examples of this "anti-black gossip" you refer to, and why you think it's racially motivated. After all, surely the Mid Ocean is entitled to criticise people who are black, is it not?

Also, I'd like to ask you to speculate for a minute: how do you think the Mid Ocean's coverage of the PLP would change if the party was comprised of, say, 60% blacks and 40% whites?

Rossini

I expect the gazette to fulfill its mission to get the UBP re-elected.

So which individuals do you believe are orchestrating this mission, and how do you think they're doing so? Do you think it's Bill Zuill, telling his reporters what to write and editing their stories to give them a pro-UBP slant? Or do you think the owners of the paper are telling Bill Zuill what to do? Who is pulling the strings?

jake

How you can credibly compare a child molester to a speeding ticket or
even no insurance / license.. is so far beyond me that you must be a Limey to understand.

I was not comparing child molestation to driving without a licence. I was making the point that when you are agitating for a cause, your own conduct in that area is fair game for scrutiny.

To use another example, if the head of the RSPCA keeps his pit bull chained up outside all day without water, I'd expect the Gazette to report that too. If the head of the Buy Bermuda campaign does most of her shopping online, that's news too. Now whether you think that is ultimately relevant to his or her ability to do the job is for you to decide. But I think the paper has an obligation to present those facts to you for consideration.

[Silencio on 30.03.06 at 18:50]

"Sarah, the fact that you were not pushed to write one way or another is really neither here nor there."

You bet. Not to be sarcastic but the other option is that a reporter who already writes what the Editor wants doesn't need a push.

Hey all, while defending the RG, feel free to ignore what they did to Dr. Johnson with the "photo opportunities" in Hester. If the book reads like its cover, the RG should be ashamed of itself, and most of you here should be embarassed for your silence.

[Silencio on 30.03.06 at 18:57]

And for the record, I do think that the RSC Head should have a spotless road record. I just don't think that when you consider what was done in Hester that RG were simply doing a good job. I think that Hester demonstrated that RG is willing to do whatever it takes to cause the PLP votes, as probably has a spring in their step when they go looking for dirt. Notice there was no mention of "Suntan Bootsie" at the UBP rally.

[Phil on 30.03.06 at 19:14]

Silencio

feel free to ignore what they did to Dr. Johnson with the "photo opportunities" in Hester.

What's up, were you suffering a sense of humour failure on that day? I thought those photos were damn funny.

[Onion on 30.03.06 at 20:30]

Limey says:

"I'd also like to hear some examples of this "anti-black gossip" you refer to, and why you think it's racially motivated. After all, surely the Mid Ocean is entitled to criticise people who are black, is it not?"

One would think they are afraid to criticize any whites, particularly prominent ones. Read Rossini's comments above.

For goodness sakes Limey, just read the headlines of the MidOcean over the last 5 years. Got to the reference library and look at archives. The MO's political persuasion is naked.

As for the story you pointed to that was positive, well done. You found a needle in the haystack. Like I said, the RG is better under Zuill than under White, but there is still some ways to go.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 30.03.06 at 20:42]

That doesn't answer the question.

[tilti on 30.03.06 at 20:48]

onion, I've said this before on another thread, but I'll reiterate. A newspaper is a private enterprise, not an ombudsman out to please everyone. But it does have to remain factual and objective. I'm sure that it's reporters never go into work thinking 'what dirt can I fabricate today to fit into my insidious agenda to wrongfully acuse the PLP?' Instead they report on the news that occurs. If that supports a position that you disagree with, then get mad at the people who are making themselves newsworthy for the wrong reasons, not the reporter.
The RG is totally within its right to report on a man who has stolen $1.3 million from taxpayers. He should not be given special treatment for any reason. It was my money and I want to know. I don't buy his defense that he would not have received the amount of attention he did if he had been white.
But I'll make a deal with you, and it can be officially recorded by Limey (who knows my real name via e-mails I have sent him). I am willing to wager you $20 that the next time any white person steals $1.3 million of public money that it too will be front page news (with a picture even!). I'm feeling generous today, so I'll extend the bet to cover any time an acting UBP member publicly uses the work nigger, threatens freedom of speech or is involved in a dirty sex scandal (that last one was just for fun) that they will all also make frontpage news.

[buddy on 30.03.06 at 20:52]

Yes, the minority population rules over the majority.
All racism in Bermuda is directed against the poor black folk...like the Inghams, Lightbourns, Mings, burrows, etc.
All white people receive handouts on silver platters.
Banks and media are populated by white people only.
Sorry for being the decendant of someone who may or may not have had slaves....although, most of you black Bermudians should be sorry for slave trading as well....but let's not let the truth taint your arguement.

Can we move now...the rest of the world is pretty disgusted with an island that claims to be the height of human civilization....but with a piss poor track record in human rights..and the judicial system!...what a joke.

[observor on 30.03.06 at 20:59]

easy there buddy

Onion, Rossini & Silencio - perhaps you can provide a summary of the many noteworthy accomplishments of the current government which would warrant front page adulation in the RG?

[Silencio on 30.03.06 at 21:25]

"What's up, were you suffering a sense of humour failure on that day? I thought those photos were damn funny."

Limey, did you see the actual evening news report of that event?

[Silencio on 30.03.06 at 21:32]

Observor,

I've read enough newspapers to know that the Royal Gazette and Mid Ocean news are very biased and just do a lazy ass job at reporting. Just compare its standards to any internationally respected newspaper, and you will see that it survives through momentum, and not because it does a stellar job. The PLP was taking licks before they became Govt, when they took the Govt and long before any scandals or gross incompetence was on display.

[tilti on 30.03.06 at 21:52]

Silencio, maybe you have read enough RG stories that you think are biased and that you need no further explanations, but, for my sake will you educated me on this? A second challenge would be for you to find similar instances of white private individuals being given a different set of standards of representation for similar crimes.

If you can demonstrate clearly with specific events that there is a double standard of objective reporting then I will change my tune. Until then, I will simply assume that the RG is diligently reporting cases of corruption, mismanagement and misspending that I want to know about.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 30.03.06 at 22:03]

So I guess the answer is... no, you can't?

[tilti on 30.03.06 at 22:04]

"Just compare its standards to any internationally respected newspaper, and you will see that it survives through momentum, and not because it does a stellar job." Silencio

On a second point, what newspapers in particular are you refering to? British newspapers are extremely open about their political leanings and any Bermudian politician would wilt under the pressure they place their MP's under. The New York Times: Jason Blair and anti-Republican. The Washington Post is a watchdog of public policy that would report a politicians secretary who who filed their taxes incorrectly. All three of Canada's national papers are downright vicioius against MP's who sit on the wrong side of parliament.
The common theme among all of these papers - which are all undeniably great, world respected papers - is that they, like the RG, do not publish events that didn't happen (except of course for Jason Blair). Don't get mad at the RG, get mad at the person who is doing themselves and those they represent a disservice by gaining negative public attention, breaking the law, or being ineffective.

[Phil on 30.03.06 at 22:08]

Silencio

Limey, did you see the actual evening news report of that event?

I did not. Why?

Onion

For goodness sakes Limey, just read the headlines of the MidOcean over the last 5 years. Got to the reference library and look at archives. The MO's political persuasion is naked.

Doing that will not tell me which stories you consider to be "anti-black gossip". A story that you would categorise as such I may consider to be a factual report about someone who is black. So let's talk about some specific cases.

[SarahT on 31.03.06 at 06:25]

Jake - don't worry. I've been called worse. That wasn't the part about your post that was upsetting to me.

Onion - regarding the examples you gave. I think this illustrates the problem I'm talking about. There appears to be a chasm in the thinking between those are who news-minded and those who are in the public. Let me reiterate again that I do not work for the Royal Gazette anymore and have no idea what the reasoning behind the editorial decisions are these days (as I've made clear by admitting my complete ignorance of all this Dr. Johnson stuff). BUT as someone who once worked in the media I have to say:

1) Yes the story about the Regiment soldiers importing weed sounds like it was a legitimate news story (again, haven't read it). They were overseas representing Bermuda - that's all of US, don't forget - and they screwed up. It also says a lot about the Regiment and its power to discipline its own men. It's legit. As for its placement on the front page, again, I didn't see the story and have no idea what else was going on that day. But I would wager a guess that the editors sat around discussing the relative importance of each story that day - as they do - and decided that this one was the most newsworthy in comparison to the rest. I bet lots of people disagree with them. They disagree with each other, believe it or not. But the decision has to be made and you still haven't answered how the paper could theoretically prove that such decisions are not made on the basis of some crazy conspiracy theory to bring back the UBP (ha) and keep black people down.

2) Regiment troops working hard is not legitimate front page news. That's exactly what they were supposed to be doing. News by definition is the exception, not the rule. If the RG reported it every time someone did what they are supposed to be doing it would be an extremely long, boring paper without much point to it. Obviously they have to and do report it when someone does something exceptionally well - that's the whole point, the paper has to report on the exceptions, good and bad. Reporting on the rule? What good is that doing anyone?

3) Premier blasting the newspaper - also not a legit front page story, not unless it was a reaaaaaaaaaaaally slow news day. Just because the Premier said something doesn't make it front page news. Again, the editors have to weigh the importance of every single story that happens in a given day and place them in the paper accordingly. I have no idea what else was in the paper that day but my guess is that Mr. Scott blasting the newspaper yet again was less newsworthy than whatever was on the front page. Had he announced some great new initiative to give Bermudians more opportunities or whatever then that would have been placed higher up than a story about him bollocking the Gazette again.

Your comment re second rate expats - what exactly is a second rate expat?? (And where do all the first rate expats go? Are there any third rate expats?) And if everyone's so worried about white expats coming in, why don't we get some more Bermudians in there? The RG gives students fantastic exposure to all areas of law, business, tourism, all kinds of things. They get access to people and places that they would never have access to otherwise. It's a fantastic opportunity for students. Let's start encouraging young Bermudian students to get in there and see what it's about. Maybe some will even want to stay on and make the newspaper the quality publication we all want it to be.

White businessmen being maligned - again, this is where I am unsure what could be done to change your perceptions. Are you talking about a CURE-type thing where every day the RG has to write three positive stories about young blacks, three positive stories about the PLP, one positive story about whites, and four negative or critical stories in total? I agree that the paper must hold itself to a higher standard of quality reporting, encompassing the issues of fairness and objectivity. I agree that a lot of mistakes have and are being made. I would be the last person to say the RG is doing a great job. I'm just not sure how you can actually test or quantify any level of bias and remain interested to hear what exactly would reassure you.

Silencio - yes, you betcha. I was probably already fulfilling the editor's agenda so perfectly that he didn't need to tell me what to do. I was a brainwashed lackey without a mind of my own. Grant Gibbons hypnotised me when I was a very small child. He also gets all them second rate expat reporters when they arrive at Customs. Unfortunately, as previously noted, I don't know what I can do to persuade you that this is, well, not true. What do you think it will take?

As for the comment about newspapers overseas, the RG is nothing compared to their levels of aggression. I strongly doubt any Bermudian politician could stand up to some of the journalists from overseas. We Bermudian journalists are far too soft!

I'm glad to hear that most seem to think the RG under Bill is at least making some positive progress towards dispelling any bias leftover from years ago. That's something at least.

[Bill Cook on 31.03.06 at 06:51]

Sarah,

I think you covered that very well.

I was not in the newspaper side of Bda Press I was the sales manager of the jobbing section and designing hotel brochures and annual reports etc.

I was always interested in reporting however but the truth is it does not pay too well, and I just freelanced as well as my regular job.

The newspaper has a terrible time correcting errors which is time consuming and frustrating.

I would not want the job of managing Bda Press for all the tea in China.

Limey , let me know when you get " specific cases " I wont be holding my breath.

You mean you want PROOF ?

WE DONT NEED NO STINKING PROOF !!

Sorry I loved that line in Bogies Treasure of Sierra Madre.

[Slowhand on 31.03.06 at 07:02]

It sounds to me that an experiment should be done where Silencio, or some other person who has issues with the RG, should pick a day(s)in the past, and the same exercise can be done where all the stories are broken down in a similar way.

[Silencio on 31.03.06 at 07:15]

{Silencio

Limey, did you see the actual evening news report of that event?

"I did not. Why?"}

Limey,

Do yourself a favour and ask around what made those photos so special. People who saw the actual live event should be able to tell you.

{Silencio, maybe you have read enough RG stories that you think are biased and that you need no further explanations, but, for my sake will you educated me on this?}

Not a problem - the easiest example would be the arbitrary edit Bill Zuill did of one of Limey's columns. The column was critical of former RG editor David White. But after the edit it looked like claims of media bias were all in the PLP's head. Now why would I participate in any further analysis of bias in the local press when this well known event is so easily forgotten? If I honestly thought that you guys wanted a fair press, I would indulge you. But as long as the Mid Oceans unattributed headliners are considered legitimate tender, consider yourself a member of the status quo.

[tilti on 31.03.06 at 08:47]

Silencio, I still do not think that you know how a newspaper opeartes. It is a private enterprise. All news expresses a point, but no legitimate news makes up slander. All newspapers offend some people sometimes with their use of satire and humour - it just so happens that Bermudians aren't very good a laughing at themselves. Either a) find me a newspaper anywhere in the Western hemisphere that operates differently, or b) start your own paper, create a web site or inititate a blog of your own that will give what you see as factual and unbiased accounts. The offer has always been there from Limey for assistance.