Okay, it was our fault.

Premier Alex Scott misdirected an e-mail containing an offensive word and what he denies was a racial slur because the media is bent on division and negativity.

And having sent the e-mail and endured controversy and criticism as a result, he will now be moving an unspecified initiative in the Throne Speech apparently aimed at curbing irresponsible newspapers, including this one.

Does this make any sense?

A few days ago, it might have been possible to give Mr. Scott a pass on the now infamous e-mail in which he said he was tired of taking ?crap? from people ?who sound and look like? entertainer and tourism critic Tony Brannon.

After all, it is all too easy to press reply instead of forward on a computer, and apparently it is even easier to do it with a Blackberry. And clearly Mr. Scott has been under a lot of stress recently. What else could explain him insulting the intelligence of around 13,000 voters who signed the petition calling for a referendum on Independence? It?s also fair to say that Mr. Scott has a hard job, and even a saint would tire of the never-ending chorus criticism and negativity that it is the lot of most Premiers. It is tempting too to excuse Mr. Scott on the grounds that he was simply blowing off steam. Don?t we all do that from time to time?

If Mr. Scott had stopped his e-mail at ?I?m tired of taking crap from people who sound like him?, he might be excused for the sentiment, if not the language, especially when he has apologised for the c-word, which is pretty low down the list of offensive words.

But Mr. Scott?s refusal to even apologise for any offence he may have caused Mr. Brannon, even allowing for his flimsy definition of the word ?look? (and since Mr. Scott has got into semantics, the Oscar Wilde quote he used was taken out of context and his definition certainly doesn?t gibe with former Minister Renee Webb?s) is unfortunate, but sadly typical.

Rather than apologise and move on, Mr. Scott has again adopted the technique of attacking when his back is against the wall. When he was under fire over the mismanagement of the Berkeley project, he attacked the Auditor General. This time he has chosen the media as his target.

In part, this is because he claims the Mid-Ocean News only contacted him ?one hour before going to print?, a misstatement that that newspaper will no doubt answer.

Mr. Scott also cited three stories as evidence of the divisive behaviour of the Island?s newspapers.

The first was a satirical piece in this newspaper that posited a bizarre explanation for the Progressive Labour Party?s vote-losing obsession with Independence. This newspaper defended the piece (what sane person would believe that any political party would deliberately give up power?) but admitted at the time that it would have been better to have included a disclaimer, a point Mr. Scott omitted yesterday.

The second was this newspaper?s use of the word ?eunuch? in a headline. Mr. Scott said it was an obscenity. It?s not.

Finally, an editorial in the Mid-Ocean News described the Premier as ?pissing on the backs of voters and telling them it?s rain?. That wasn?t a beautiful turn of phrase, but it hardly set grandmothers blushing ? certainly no more than a newspaper running a picture of a sexual aid on its front page would.

And that, in essence, is that.

Nonetheless, Mr. Scott now intends to rein in the media, and the public will hear all about it in a few weeks when the Throne Speech is read.

It is worth noting that this is not the first time the media has been criticised recently. In his recent Hamilton Rotary speech, former Premier Sir John Swan said the media was failing its duty by not doing enough to hold the current Government to account. And yet Mr. Scott says the media is a divisive agent that is preventing Bermuda from working together. Who?s right?

It would appear that Mr. Scott?s idea of a Bermuda working together is one that agrees with him without reservation.

There?s only one problem with that. It?s not democracy. It?s dictatorship.