Would anyone like to share Press stories of a personal nature?

In my time in Bermuda I had odd relationships with various editors regarding the publishing of my opinions.
Some editors refused to even read my work saying they had no time. Some said that opinion pieces are too hard to sustain- no wonder blogs haven't caught on. Hell. Bermuda is opinion piece heaven. Some said I only publish American essays and opeds and my own - write a Letter to the Editor, and bugger off.

I learned as a white woman that I could not write what a black person could. As a heterosexual woman, I was not allowed to write things that Gays could. I found the Press like everything else in Bermudian society to be bound by rules. Who gets to say what. No wonder we don't know who all our allies are if the Press gags itself in old fashioned rules of place.

Still, though frustrating I did have several pieces published but stopped in disgust over a particular attempted chop job on one of my pieces. And then that's all she wrote 'til Limey.

I have come to the conclusion,
That the papers are in collusion,
With who I have no clue,
But a fact I know is true.
They manipulate the view,
Or just bury it if they decide to,
So some will never see,
What is in fact reality.
I hope to find one day,
Honest reporting having it's way,
No bias, no preconceptions,
No bullshitting because of elections.
So bring on the blogs and forums,
With whatever type of decorum,
So we can discuss and debate,
Our island and our fate.

I recently had an LTE not get published at the RG. I sent a follow up asking why, but no one replied. It was an important time-based piece so I had hoped to have it published by a certain date. That never happened. In re-reading it, there may have been facts in it that could not be verified, thus to protect the person, they decided against publishing it. Especially since the person is a UBP MP (not that it should have been any different if it had been a PLP MP).

I believe that the media can only be trusted to report in it's own interests. I often said to some police friends that people want to hear the daily crime blotter on the news and in the paper rather than gestures of good being done in and around the community on a daily basis.

Understand that the media, as a whole is geared to attract a  scandal hungry public who would much rather read about a pregnant 16 year old Jamie Lynn Spears (on two back to back pages in the same edition of the RG one day last week) than anything decent happening in society.

Use them before they use you I say.

Dear Mr. Deacon,

Thank you for your invitation.

Has the Royal Gazette asked the Human Rights Commission if any laws have been violated? Have you sought legal opinion on any Constitutional matters that may have been infringed upon by this Government/Party?

I think it was prior to the 98 Election, that the infamous Delaey Robinson in the target ad was run, commissioned by unknown UBP supporters. Dusty Hind was put on the hot seat for the placement of the ad. I recall a very public meeting with, was it Dr. Eva Hodgson? And I think Mr. Hind resigned thereafter.

Does the disparity between the Public outrage and consequences of possible questionable behavior in 98 and the present, mean that Human Rights apply for some and not for others. Ironic or not, do white Bermudians have to fight for equal rights.

Now perhaps people have a deeper appreciation of Gays, who suffer from Government sanctioned hate speech to this day. Truly all the People are diminished by the effects of hate speech.

Eddie

I'll try to be brief and I'll start with a good get-out: there's a lot here that I cannot respond to either because it does not touch on us or refers to something historic.

But as for the rest:

Fast Eddie, you said you found the press here to be bound by rules and as a result the press effectively gagged itself.

I've worked in newspapers for almost 25 years and can think of only a few rules (here or anywhere), such as trying to properly substantiate a story, libel, contempt of court etc that govern how and what we report.

I think it is very old fashioned to think otherwise. There are no Murdochs here and no outside pressures that I have ever encountered - therefore no gag.

We try to be sensitive to the community and try and remember the issue of 'taste' - but that usually only affects the story placement or length of the story.

As for having your copy cut - sorry to be blunt but that's an occupational hazard and if you didn't like it you should have raised it at the time (were you writing to length and style and to the brief given to you?)

You also mention that when reading the papers that questions were not being asked. It's probably more accurate to say that they were being asked, but not answered.

Since I've been back (I worked here first as a reporter in the 90s when I met my Bermudian wife) I have insisted that if questions are not answered we say so. I was stung by an entry in a blog which labelled the press as spineless.

That was both an ignorant (because it shows people were prepared to comment grandly about something they know little about) and insulting because it undermines a lot of the very good work the journalists here do.

Reality - as for opinion pieces, what you say is true to some extent, but not nearly all.

One of the main reasons for having columnists is to get reaction and get people talking and debating. The more reaction the better: as long as it is based on something sound (in terms of the rules above - libel, taste, community sensitivity etc).

There is also a real art to writing - and sustaining - a column and not everyone has the skill, the time (we do not have full-time columnists) or the temperament to do it.

There is no doubt that any paper can be lifted by its columnists so if you know some who will: supply copy to style and length, on time every week, year in year out, who will entertain, inform, infuriate, who will never go stale and who will write knowledgeably on a range of topics please contact me.

Sparxx, if you did not get a reply about why your letter was not published: my sincere apologies.

We are inundated with letters but we have a very finite amount of space - but to be honest you've hit the nail on the head when you admit that there were facts that could not be verified (see rules above).

And what do you mean that the media 'can only be trusted to report in its own interests'? I'm lost for words on that one............

As I said I have worked in newspapers for almost 25 years and the one guiding aim has always been to try and get the best possible stories out into the public domain.

The media is here to investigate, expose, inform, entertain, enlighten and record – and stimulate debate. Judging by how many debates here are based on media reports, we must be doing something right.

And, we constantly try and emphasise the positive - although sometimes the positives are hard to find.


Now I have to go - there is a paper to get out!

Have a good New Year

Jeremy

PS, I've colluded with every other newspaper known to man on this to make sure the view is as manipulated as possible and that key facts are buried in such a way no-one will ever be able to see. In fact the whole thing is a litany of dishonesty and bias and riddled with preconceptions..........

especially that one, a fine newspaper............

Hi Reality,

Thanks, yes it was a bit of fun and hopefully dispelled some of the beliefs (as posted here) that the journalists don't ask the questions, when obviously they do.

We have said in many stories that questions have not been answered or people have not called back and that will continue. Whether we carry it as a regular slot remains to be seen.

Do you think we should?

Jeremy

What does anyone else think?