Clear reporting

May 10, 2009

Dear Sir,

I have been following with great interest the Premier's efforts to constantly paint The Royal Gazette as a totally biased newspaper, biased that is, against the Premier and his Government.

And then I recalled several articles published in The Royal Gazette on March 23 this year on the state of public education in Bermuda. These included a comprehensive interview with the newly appointed Minister of Education, the Hon. El James, and the new Board of Education Chairman. Of all the issues facing Government this is one of the most critical, and one of the easiest for the media to criticise, with good reason.

What I found most striking was the refreshingly honest answers given by Minister El James who clearly knew his subject and was able to address all of the questions put to him by the reporter Sam Strangeways. There was not a hint of criticism in any of the extensive articles about Minister James or his vision of what is needed to improve our education system.

I thought at the time that here is a Minister who has provided a text book example of how a Government Minister should handle questions from the media. He was honest and straightforward, and as a result he was treated with courtesy and respect by the reporter and by The Royal Gazette. The Royal Gazette has since published other articles in which they have quoted Minister James, and all have been positive.

Why is that? Is it because they appreciate his honesty and integrity and realise that he has the education of our young people at heart?

Or is it because the Royal Gazette is engaged in some bizarre right-wing conspiracy to make other Ministers look good while making the Premier look bad?

How does this square with the Premier's assertion that The Royal Gazette is always critical of everything said and done by Government?

It is the media's job to report on both the negatives and the positives of the issues facing Bermuda, but I believe that The Royal Gazette is only too happy to cooperate and publish positive articles when our Government Ministers are honest, truthful and transparent.

Isn't that what we were promised by former Premier, the Hon. Alex Scott?

A NON-POLITICAL OBSERVER

Smith's

A stark contrast

May 9, 2009

Dear Sir,

The way our current Government and many of its supporters complain about and criticise the media and the Opposition, one would think they are the Opposition. Have they forgotten that they won the right, as Government, to sit in the hot seat and that it is the role of the Opposition to question their actions, not the other way around?

It is the job of Government to govern. It is not the media and the Opposition who are making policy and governing. Rather, the media is there, as Sam Donaldson once said, to hold the feet of public officials "to the fire of public accountability". The Opposition is there to question Government policies and decisions and, where necessary, put forward alternative views. They are there to make sure more than one voice is heard by the people. They are there to ensure people always have a choice.

I can't help but think back to when this Government was the Opposition. They were very critical, often strident, never soft and many times quite ruthless. They were doing their job. And now as the Government, they must be questioned just as they questioned previous governments. There are no exemptions, no free rides.

I look forward to the day when our Government and its supporters stop whining and instead focus on doing a better job of serving the people of Bermuda.

This evening I watched President Obama speaking at the White House Correspondents Dinner. He was very funny. He poked fun at the media and his opponents, all in a spirit of camaraderie. He spoke sincerely and graciously about how important a free and vibrant media is for his country's democracy and how it made him a better servant of the people. It was a stark contrast to what is being said by our Government.

RONDA JAMES

Paget

Empathy and apology

May 11, 2009

Dear Sir,

I refer to the recent debate in Parliament regarding Bermuda's need to apologise for past racial injustices. Junior Minister of Justice Michael Scott hit the nail on the head. He said that what was needed from the white population was empathy. That people can offer an "empathetic apology".

As we all should know, years ago, the vast majority of white Bermudians were taught from the cradle to think in racist terms. Our lives were kept separate from the lives of the black population – in the home, in the schools and in the churches. We had the power – black Bermudians had no power and that was that.

Many times we have heard older whites say that they have never thought racially – that they grew up "playing with black kids", etc. etc. The problem is, those whites never really thought about it – in honest terms. And, the fact of the matter is, the racial injustice didn't happen to them.

Go back 60 years – was that black child you played with at age five, the same person you might have worked next to, on an equal basis, in the bank, the post office, the law firm?

It isn't easy but the only thing a white person of any age has to do is try his hardest to imagine what it must have been like to be born black in Bermuda, in, let's say, 1930. What would his/her life experiences have been? (To go back as far as 1830 would be too appalling to contemplate.)

Many white Bermudians of all ages have already done this. That is the reason we have no difficulty in offering an unequivocal, empathetic apology.

I guarantee that any white person who puts himself/herself through that sort of exercise will have empathy to spare for his black counterpart.

An acknowledgment or apology will come easy after that. Then maybe, we could all move on?

KATH BELL

Paget