Quick Thoughts on the Government and RG Cancellations
Posted by J Starling on March 27, 2008
I’m currently in the middle of a three day training program as a part of my shop steward responsibilities for the BPSU, so I apologise for not being able to post regularly and in-depth on several of the current events unfolding in Bermuda.
I did however want to comment on the news concerning the Government’s cancellation of the subscriptions and advertising with the Royal Gazzette.
Despite the spin put forward by the Government regarding its decision to do this as based on budget cost cutting, I have reasons to believe that this is largely spin, and that the real reason is indeed to facilitate the destruction of the Royal Gazette as an organisation. I severely doubt that this action alone will succeed in doing that, but I do believe it will cause some serious hardship to the company, and that other actions in the immediate future will only increase the hardship faced by the RG.
I had known of the planned action towards the RG for at least two weeks, but was still suprised that they decided to go ahead with it. I want to make clear that I myself have some serious reservations concerning the bias of the RG, but I do not think this excuses the action currently being taken towards them. The Government, or rather the Party, has had the resources at its disposal to release information in an unfiltered form through its own sources for some time but for one reason or another has failed to utilise these resources. It is also well-known within the Party that much of its support base does not have access to the electronic media beyond the radio and the television, and as much as the RG is viewed as biased, it remains the principal source for information dissemination beyond the Party and Union infrastructure.
In short I have reason to believe that this is indeed part of an organised campaign to destablise the RG for political reasons. I am not able to bring up evidence as its nature was essentially verbal and not written. I believe there will soon be an organised media form that will rival the existing media, and that it will be financed by a foreign media organisation – my information points towards the Awraq Publishing group, part of the Arab Media Group, a Dubai based company. I may be wrong, and I am only stating my opinion and not making any accusations.
I would like to state clearly that this action, although I can understand it based on the historical antipathy between the progressive labour movement and the RG, is not in line with the principles of progressive labour, and rather serve to strengthen the very infrastructures that progressive labour set out to confront. One does not overthrow the plantation system and colonialism by replacing it with a ‘better’ plantation system or a ‘better’ colonialism. That will only serve to perpetuate the problem while changing the superficialities of the situation.
J said
Interesting to see the Government working to destabilise a unionised Bermuda company (the RG).
Targeting the Media said
[...] Catch a Fire indicates that he is aware that “other actions in the immediate future will only increase the hardship faced by the RG.” [...]
jonnystar said
Just a quick comment in response to Vexed’s post. I must stress I am not making allegations. My comments are opinions based on some information I am aware of but not in a position to back up, and thus, as any lawyer will tell you, I cannot substantiate my statements. Should what I have written of here come to pass, then at least you heard it here first; if not, well then I was wrong and thats egg on my face. Nonetheless, I stand by my statement that such actions run contrary to the ideals fo the progressive labour movement, and cannot condone them, or sit back and not comment on them, which is the same as condoning. I leave it to others to investigate whether there is any truth to what I have said (and I cannot remember the exact name of the foreign company I heard, but I know it was an Arabic company, and I think it was the ones I stated).
WildChild said
Having recently relocated to the island, I am ignorant to the history of Bermuda. I am regular reader of several Bermuda related blogs. In the spirit of trying to make the most out of being in a new environment, I would like to know and hope that somebody can point in the right direction. What is the rift between the PLP and the Royal Gazette? What is the bias that everybody speaks of. Like I said I am new but could anybody give me an example of this bias. If there is perceived bias why has the PLP waited this long to break ties? Why not their first term? Why don’t PLP supporters stop supporting an anti-PLP news outlet? Royal Gazette is campaigning for the Right to Know, why don’t PLP supporters campaign for a more even balanced paper? Is there any paper on the island that is perceived to be better than others? Is the Royal Gazette owned by Rupert Murdock? Only kidding. Sorry for all the questions. I do appreciate reading these blogs. They provide great insight into Bermuda.
vanz said
jon, i don’t know if u’ve read ira philips book the history of the biu – but from what the book recounts of rg’s racist and hateful stance twd dr. gordon, dr. cann, the biu and it’s forerunners i’m surprised the plp took this long to axe their dealing sw/ that seems to have interest in hiring bdans or being fair in its journalistic responsibility – that paper has had over a 150 years to come correct and showed no interest in ever doing so – at least in the states newspapers often wear their politics on their sleeves but for every right wing washington times there is a more balanced washington post – in bda we never had that balance on a consistent basis – what would propose that this labour govt. do? ironically in phillips book – it opens with a history of rev monk’s newspaper – a pro labour newspaper that spoke up for mistreated jamaican labourers building the dockyard at the turn of the century 1903 – that paper was qwikly put out of business and monk deported – i’m not saying that the rg should share that fate – but the rg imho has misused it’s monopoly and has only itself to blame.
Fred Menace said
So Vanz, why’d you pull back so fast on the journal website?
The Gazette is one of many media outlets in Bermuda. They are not a monopoly by any definition.
The real answer is Ewart hates the Gazette and wants to control the press. If what Starl says is true, he’ll sell out to foreign interests in order to get what he wants.
Blankman said
The reality is that the Gazette is remarkably balanced in its coverage of the news (if anything I’d argue it’s been treating the government with kid gloves).
Anyplace else in the world rumours of extramarital affairs and resulting abortions would be front page news. Add the gory details of the sexual orientation of various MP’s and the press would have a field day.
It’s clear that Ewart hates the Gazette and is trying very hard to shut them down.
Sums It Up said
[...] no consequence, then behaviour becomes bolder. The community did not bark when BCC felt the love. Now it’s the Royal Gazette’s turn. And the response? “Bermuda Sun editor Tony McWilliam said: “We’re watching the [...]
jonnystar said
Hi Vanz,
There was a duplication of your post so I deleted one of them; I didn’t see any difference between the two, but let me know if I missed something.
I have indeed read the history of the BIU book by Brother Ira, as well as Freedom Fighters: From Monk to Mazumbo, and I reccommend them to anyone. The BIU history book in particular is an incredible resource and in my opinion I have learned more about Bermuda’s modern development from that one source than any other. It is also a sad fact, and I think this comes from the Monk to Mazumbo book, but at the beginning of the last century Bermuda had several Black owned media, but at the end of the century there was none, other than I suppose the Workers Voice. It was a serious regression in that respect, and there are numerous reasons for it, not the least of which is the fact that newspapers at least are motly loss-making as it is, Blacks had less access to various capitals, and general discrimination towards them.
I certainly echo your sentiments regarding the RG’s historical bias, and am in no way seeking to protect them in this manner. But I do believe that this method, and I’m sure it will be denied as that (you gotta love spin), is reprehensible and something that progressive labour fought against. That we should use these same tactics is despicable and contrary to our principles. It would have been far better, and totally concievable, for the Government to facilitate the creation of a rival daily – not control its content or anything, but ensure its early development. I am aware that this is now being done, but this should have been done first and leave it at that.
Hi Fred Menace,
As far as I know there is only circumstantial evidence of Vanz being behind the blog you refer to. Vanz already operates a blog of his own, so I see no reason for him to have set up this second one, when he could have viewed his opinions on his own one. I am inclined to believe Vanz is not responsible for that blog. Having said that, I never actually saw it, it was ‘in hibernation’ by the time I had a chance to view it.
Hi Blankman,
While I think we disagree on our perception of bias in the RG, I would actually echo your comments about their investigative reporting being rather soft. I have often thought that the RG needed some genuine (as in a rival daily) competition in order to get better reporting from them in this respect. But weak investigative reporting and bias are two different phenomena.
On a final note, I feel I need to respond to some statements of Comrade Rowland, and I’m sure he’ll understand what I mean. I have no where indicated that my revelations have come from ‘internal Party sources’ as he alludes. As for fears for personal safety, those arise from a separate matter that I did not have time to communicate. I am not at liberty to expand further on these.
vanz said
“So Vanz, why’d you pull back so fast on the journal website?”
i have nothing to do w/ that site – when i saw it i noticed that they used a term that Adrian robson at the rg uses often – so i emailed him to accuse him or his supporters of being behind it – it sounds like a non blk person writing from a percieved (pro blk/anti white) blk pov – a day after i emailed robson – the site went down – hmmmmm
tt said
Dubious. The site disappeared after the newspaper wrote about it.
Blankman said
One other point worth noting. Cancelling the Gazette (both advertising and subscriptions) will not result in any significant savings to Government. All it means is that advertising dollars will be directed elsewhere. The fact is those other outlets will be more sympathetic to the Government and just happen to be owned by an FOE (Friend of Ewart) will result in Government monies being channelled to insiders but will not result in a savings to the taxpayer.
vanz said
anyone who does not see that the gazette is not providing fair and unbiased reporting is delusional – if the govt. is going to be questioned on it’s intentions then so should the gazette – it has never lived up to a real journalistic integrity.
“Dubious. The site disappeared after the newspaper wrote about it.”
most people who are critical of the gazette etc. do so in plain site – cal smith, alvin williams, d burgess etc. – so why would all of a sudden a rg critic start an anonymous blog – ask urself – in bda who are the anonymous critics – hmmmm
vanz said
“It would have been far better, and totally concievable, for the Government to facilitate the creation of a rival daily.”
i totally agree – if we lived in a textbook world – but u and i both know that a segment of the business community would not support a rival daily out of political and possibly racial spite
Blankman said
Vanz, if you actually think the Gazette is abnormally rough on government you’re clearly channelling your inner tigga. Hate to tell you this but the job of a free press is to critisize their governments (and the opposition for that matter).
As far as I can see the Brown government doesn’t believe in a free press.
jonnystar said
Hi Vanz,
Yes, I agree there would have been a segment of the business community that would not support a rival daily out of, at least, political spite. Nonetheless it would have been better to do that than to actively give ammunition to critics of the Party, which, quite frankly, these tactics are doing.
Hi Blankman,
I do not necessarily see the RG as a ‘free press’ but rather under the control of business interests that have traditionally been hostile to progressive labour, as is evident within our historical records. I won’t go so far as to say that the current manifestation of the RG is anywhere as hostile as previous incarnations, and most of its bias I believe comes from general ignorance on the part of its dependency on foreign staff who are not aware of Bda’s cultural history, or otherwise racially insensitive. It should be the role of the RG to criticise the Government; this is entirely healthy and necessary in order to help hold in check Governmental excesses within the current system. But my acceptance of this does not in anyway mitigate my perception of the RG as biased against the PLP as well. And honestly, I’m not opposed to the RG being biased against the RG, thats fine.
Blankman said
jon, I really don’t see the RG as particularly biased and as I’ve said before they’ve been exceptionally gentle on the PLP and individual politicians.
As for their reliance on “foreign” journalists I’m not sure what impact that has, unless you feel that an outsider will be more likely to be biased than a local?? If anything I’d expect the reverse to be true.
Fred Menace said
Oh vanciepants, it seems to me that the Gov’s PR office is heavily staffed with Bermudians they have hired away from the newspapers. Same with a few of the insurance companies. So, you could say that the newspapers do an admirable job of getting Bermudians up the corporate ladder!
jonnystar said
Hi Fred,
Just a quick caution on what I percieve to be a personal attack in regards to Vanz (re “vanciepants). Thats all.
Hi Blankman,
My comment regarding the ‘foreign’ journalists is that they do not know the history of Bermuda and often come from an environment that trains them to report in such a way that is not always conducive for Bermuda. Don’t get me wrong, this is both a source of great potential strength and potential weakness for them as journalists. As foreigners they CAN report in a relatively unbiased why in as much as they have not been socialised into our local biases and such. They CAN report with a greater degree of objectivity because of this. However I feel alot of them fail to conduct a review of Bermuda’s recent social development, or explore some of the themes concerning racial power dynamics; in short they fail to conduct a sociological study of the environment they find themselves in. This leads them often to simple mistakes, or unintentional slights that compounded create the appearence of biased reporting. Also, often they attempt to approach news here as if they were still in their homelands, which again can be a source of great strength, but more often than not leads them into further errors. The RG – and I know they do not currently do this from personal communication – should begin some sort of socio-historical course for all of its existing foreign reporters and for all future reporters. This should also include a bit on the theories concerning the media and institutional racism in abstract. I feel this would go a long way to solving alot of the problems concerning the RG.
I would also act that the RG’s failure, to date, to achieve an adequate resolution to the issue concerning Nancy Acton, continues to exist as a festering sore, confirming – in the eyes of many – that the UBP actively condones racism in its ranks.
[Nancy Acton was caught out in racially discriminating against a Black potential tenant. She was taken off the active reporter roll for a short time period - to allow the heat to dissipate - and then returned to the reporter roll. No outright condemnation (that I can recall) by the RG, no attempt to send her to some sort of sensitivity educational course, or anything that would have absolved the RG in this issue. I'm not suggesting she be fired, especially so long after the fact, but the way it was handled does little for the image of the RG.]
Don’t know if that helps in this regard.
J Galt said
Johnny,
Would you have complained if they did fire her?
jonnystar said
Yes, if it was done without due process. I mmay disagree with her personal views, but she still has worker’s rights which need to be defended. I would have been happy with some sort of sensitivity training or something along those lines.
Letariatpro said
Just a few random thoughts bouncing around in my head…
There is nothing anyone can do to stop Dr. Brown if what he desires is control over the media. First step would be to neuter the competition, source capital from overseas(easier to maintain local control) and then set up when the incumbent is at their weakest.
Although I may fear that forceful tactics such as this may not work in Dr. Brown’s favour as reporting will have to become more sensationalist and attention drawing in the face of competition, and irrelevant stories such as alternative personal lives will then become news to draw public interest and retain the advertising dollar. We may just end up with two papers slamming each other or their supporters.
The advertising pool here is small and I doubt can support two dailies. Funding would have to come from overseas, and eventually one will win out over the other, or have to streamline its operations and find new streams of revenue. So this could actually be a good thing for the RG as a company, but probably not for many of its staff.
This really is not about race, it is about power and control, race and bias is used as an excuse and a catalyst. To think otherwise is naive and foolish. One would be wise to fear any government controlled media.
my 2¢
vanz said
“There is nothing anyone can do to stop Dr. Brown if what he desires is control over the media.”
1st – this is nonsense and not the issue – the real issue is that the rg and other media outlets are so politically (and perhaps racially) biased – rather than speculating on false claims that the govt. wants to control the media ask questions like why is the rg not called to task on it’s unfair reporting and why does one segment of bda view that gazette unfavourably and another segment view it favourably.
i was at the meeting at msa w/ the uk mps and i saw firsthand how uk rg writer sam strangeways twisted what was actually said into something that fit the rgs anti plp stance – this has happened historically and continues t happen.
history is chock full of examples f newspapers not being interested in true journo integrity but rather are media tools for a specific interest ie:
“”In late 1964 FBI director J Edgar Hoover gave a press conference to several newspaper editors call Martin Luther King jr. the most notorious liar in the country. And this lie appeared in newspapers all over the country. That was the start of a press campaign which continued right up until King’s death. During this time that King was to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, Hoover had the FBI do everything they could to minimize the prestige of this accomplishment. Hoover couldn’t stop the Swedish and Norwegian governments from giving King the prize, but he did everything that he could to try to stop it from being honored here in the US.
There was a major banquet in Dr. King’s honor in Atlanta when he came back from receiving the prize. Hoover got the editor of the Atlanta Constitution personally to go around and try and persuade various people not to attend the banquet. There were also a series of articles around this time trying to show that King was being influenced by communists.
The FBI were actually writing the articles anonymously and then trying to get their friends in papers to print the articles under somebody else’s name. And there were a whole series, some of which actually did get printed.”
the rg may not be as vile as these examples but their intent is the same – so this idea that the press is ultimately looking out for the “people’s ” interest is a farce.
‘A Vocal Critic’ « “Catch a fire” said
[...] this blog and interested in reading what I wrote in full, in context, and the responses to it, can find it here. I’m also of course willing to discuss my position further here, or on the respective [...]
So the Dice Have Been Thrown « By Any Means Necessary said
[...] by rowlandkeshena on March 28, 2008 As I reported on last night, as did Vexed, comrade Jonnystar has pointed out that it seems that there is way more to the whole issue of the government canceling [...]