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.

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¢

Would you have complained if they did fire her?

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.

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.

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.