August is well known in the media for being “silly season”, when stories that would usually disappear without trace get unwarranted attention and jump up news lists as many newsmakers take well earned vacations.That may explain why Bermuda’s plans to eradicate its feral chicken population has had quite a lot of attention in the world’s media, from the BBC to, appropriately, www.gunsandammo.comIt’s possible, though, that this will be as bad for tourism as Minister Wayne Furbert believes online comments on news websites are.After all, visitors will not want to visit a place where there’s one chicken for every two residents, at least according to Government.Bermuda does need to deal with its feral chicken problem, it is very unlikely there are 30,000 wandering around the Island. If there were, they would be everywhere, and they’re not, at least not yet. By comparison, there are 4,000 dogs licensed in Bermuda.No doubt Bermuda will deal with the problem, which is not very complicated. And if nothing else, if the recession continues, many of them will end up in the pot.But the way the chickens have spread around the globe shows how quickly these stories can spread in this viral age.This seems to be what Tourism Minister Wayne Furbert was getting at when he accused the media, the Opposition parties and anonymous website commentators of deliberately trying to damage tourism.It’s fair to say that both the media and Opposition parties grapple with the problem of how far they should go in reporting bad news or criticising the government of the day and the extent to which it may cause harm to the Island as whole. But the media usually resolves that a first principle like telling the truth is usually the best approach, while shading the truth does more harm than good in the long run. To be sure, bad news should be mixed with good, but the truth must always out.The media too is still trying to find the best approach to dealing with online comments. Some are appalling. But restricting them has to be balanced against freedom of speech and the importance of honest debate, even if it gives offence or is frighteningly immature. But it is something that this newspaper has under active review, and that’s not parlance for doing nothing.However, Mr Furbert needs to be sure of his facts before he criticises others.He accused his so-called combined opposition of driving visitors away and cited an e-mail from visitors who had cancelled their trip, quoting them saying: “ After some discussion and monitoring the newspaper from Bermuda we have decided to pass on vacating (sic) there next spring. The environment on the island seems to be negative’.”In fact, the whole e-mail said this: “After some discussion and monitoring the newspaper from Bermuda we have decided to pass on vacating there next spring. The environment on the island seems to be negative — upswing in crime, declining attitude towards people visiting the island and in general not a good place to vacation at this time.”That statement is worrying and shows what Bermuda needs to do to improve tourism — cut crime and be more welcoming — but Mr Furbert was very misleading in not repeating the statement in its full context. Nowhere did it talk about comments on websites or the activities of opposition parties, even if it did refer to reading the newspaper.In fact Mr Furbert was playing politics, and doing exactly what politicians love to accuse journalists of doing — taking stories out of context. Some of Mr Furbert’s colleagues have made a long habit of this. Mr Furbert seemed to have more integrity, so his actions are all the more disappointing.He can and should apologise, however.