In using this tactic...

May 24, 2009

Dear Sir,

I would like to comment on a few articles which appeared in The Royal Gazette this past week. I'll start with the article published on May 21, 2009, "Editor defends Gazette and is prepared to talk with Premier". Regarding the comment "it is interesting to note how, often when a story that is vaguely critical of Government is published, a howling campaign begins, often not directed at the story itself but at the messenger…

But it does get tedious to be constantly defending your work and the honest and hard working people who produce it", in essence, to shoot the messenger is a common occurrence, especially when the message is veracious.

My observation is that, often the message is, deliberately, missed or skewed with the specific intention of masking the truth. This is similar to setting a trap with the hope of catching a wild animal, which is a potential threat to a bunch of happy campers; bait is placed in the trap to distract the animal and lure it, and once caught the animal poses no further threat to the campers.

Usually, when someone doesn't want you to see something they shouldn't have, they often try to conceal it. This behaviour is learned from a very young age, and when adults resort to this tactic, with enough practice, they become well versed in the act. In other words, they become experts in the field.

The comment that, " … A certain amount of tension between Government and the media is not a bad thing, and it is certainly not worse than a media that is too cosy with a government", is interesting because previously, I was of the understanding that The Royal Gazette had a cosy relationship with Government, especially since several former Royal Gazette staff members went on to work for Government. The comment made by Mr. Zuill that "…It (The Royal Gazette) tries to get both sides of the story, to ask questions and to determine what's truth and what is rumour…", confirms my previous suspicion that their reporters were, at times, being misinformed in that process of making a determination.

I am aware of instances where stories, reported in The Royal Gazette, have been inaccurate, and despite the truth being shared with the reporter, the facts were still concealed. This, in my view, protected Government, as did the 'fiat' which was used during the Human Rights case against Government officials.

Further, I have followed up on many factual letters sent to The Royal Gazette, which were never published, and Government, on these occasions, was spared once again. I have taken note, however, that only certain stories are embraced by the media, depending on who is at fault. This hasn't deterred me from sharing my opinion, as I live by the premise that, "If at first you don't succeed, try and try again".

I don't agree with punishing the media because there's a disagreement over what is being reported as there are often times when the skewed story is to the Government's benefit, and I don't hear them complaining or taking any form of action when that happens.

The impression I get is that, as long as Government's reputation is protected by The Royal Gazette or The Mid Ocean News, then the lines of communication between them appear to flow smoothly. However, the spoiled brat syndrome appears to take control of certain members of Government, once the applecart becomes upset.

In response to the letter to the Editor in The Royal Gazette on May 22, 2009 from David E. Chapman, London, UK, and his comment that former Premier Michael Misick of Turks and Caicos "had to resign", according to the Oxford dictionary, to "resign" means to "give up". If he gave up, then it was his personal choice to "resign"; if he was, otherwise, forced out, then one can say that he was "fired".

If Mr. Misick was of the belief that he was innocent of any wrong doing and his conscience was clear, then he should have fought to retain his position, rather than just giving up. Regarding the point mentioned by Mr. Chapman about the stench of "double standard" and "do as I say, not as I do", that stench has existed here in Bermuda long before March 2009. In fact, it's so strong now, that I'm surprised Mr. Chapman hasn't smelled it all the way in London.

JENNIFER CAINES

Devonshire

Editor's note: Without going into detail on Mrs. Caines' points, the fact that some Royal Gazette employees have gone on to work for Government does not automatically mean that The Royal Gazette would have a cosy relationship. With regard to letters not being published, in general terms, there can be several reasons for this, including the possibility that a letter is libellous or that it concerns a matter that is before the courts.