Another letter from Mrs. Furbert which raises the usual issues.

But for me I have two questions:

1)  Why write to the RG which is clearly not being read by PLP supporters on the directions of the Party? (Hell Govt. doesn't even buy it anymore?)... .....

2)  Reference Bda Sucks as being negative to everything Bermudian? What about Tigga's site? That seems pretty negative to me?.... .....I thought Tigga posted on this site for a while?

Piglet

*****************************************************************************
From RG - Letters to the Editors:

It is past time

March 29, 2008

Dear Sir,

I wonder why it took three reporters, Tim Smith, Tari Trott and Matthew Taylor to write the front page article in your paper today entitled "Premier: Learn to live with that".

The writers state "for the past two days, The Royal Gazette has been trying to find out exactly how Cabinet came to the conclusion that it is "not cost effective or penetrative enough to rely heavily on print advertising in an electronically advanced community."

As I see it the Premier was quite correct by not informing Messrs Smith, Trott and Taylor as to how Cabinet came to a decision. I have never known of any Premier, past or present, UBP or PLP, informing the public as to how Cabinet reached a decision. As a matter of interest, does the Board of Directors of the Bermuda Press Holdings Ltd. inform members of staff why they make certain decisions?

Your reporters go on to inform us, the public, that the Government is said to have spent $800,000 on subscriptions and advertising in the print media during the last fiscal year. As there is little if any Government advertising in your sister newspaper, The Mid-Ocean News, and as the Bermuda Sun publishes only twice a week, the public should assume that the bulk of that $800,000 has helped to sustain The Royal Gazette. I can therefore understand your dismay with the Premier and the Cabinet at this time.

Your reporters have further revealed that $42,000 of the $800,000 paid to The Royal Gazette has been for subscriptions. This I find extremely disturbing, the Bermudian taxpayer has been paying for civil servants to read The Royal Gazette. Certainly this must have been one of those policies that was carried over from the old government, i.e. the UBP. I could not see the PLP Government encouraging civil servants to read The Royal Gazette, especially in light of the many negative editorials and other articles that have been written about both the civil servants and the PLP Members of Parliament.

Messrs. Smith, Trott and Taylor further advise us, the reading public, that "the move has led critics to question whether it is the beginning of a drive to muzzle the freedom of the press by draining (the) newspaper's finances".

If we the Bermuda public are to assume that the move by the government to "axe its Royal Gazette deals" is a way in which the government can muzzle the freedom of the press and drain the finances of The Royal Gazette, we the public must also assume that when the UBP government refused to either advertise or subscribe to the Bermuda Times in bulk, it was that government's intention to muzzle the freedom of the press and "drain the finances" of that newspaper. I can assure the public that if the UBP government had spent only five percent of $800,000 with the Bermuda Times, that newspaper, like The Royal Gazette would still be around for Bermudians to read.

Your reporters go on (once again) to report that "Government has stepped up its hostility to the media in recent months, particular with this newspaper, with Works Minister Derrick Burgess vowing to urge young people to rise up and force Royal Gazette Sports Editor Adrian Robson out of the country... "

That is another example of biased reporting by your newspaper. Why did your reporters not make reference to the comments made by UBP Member of Parliament, Darius Tucker on this subject. In fact, it was Mr. Tucker who was the first Member of Parliament to take the media to task for their absence from the airport during the arrival of the youth cricket team. Not long after that Mr. Tucker was the first Member of Parliament to take Mr. Robson to task for his comments in his weekly column. Yet, your reporters have completely ignored his comments and the comments of other UBP MPs, as they continue to refer to Mr. Burgess' comments.

According to your report, Shadow Finance Minister Bob Richards has likened the $42,000 saved by dropping newspaper subscriptions out of a $1 billion Budget to a drop in the bucket. Certainly the Finance Minister and the Premier will find some more drops to add to that bucket so that the taxpayer's burden is lessened. Hopefully, the Government will look at the many outside vendors that are contracted to perform services for them, so that the bucket that Mr. Richards is referring to can in fact run over.

As I see it, it is really past time for you the editor, and your reporters to take a real look at your reporting and editorializing and admit that The Royal Gazette has been very unfair and biased in its reporting when it comes to the PLP Government. While you continue to plead innocence in this matter, there are many of us in the community who see The Royal Gazette for what it really is – a free public relations vehicle for the United Bermuda Party.

LAVERNE FURBERT

Hamilton Parish

P.s. If your newspaper was so fair, why is it necessary for your Assistant Editor, Jeremy Deacon, to continue to solicit comments from contributors to Bermuda Sucks, a blog that by its very title is anti-Bermudian anything. Is he in the habit of asking other bloggers for their comments?

Editor's Note: This newspaper is not so arrogant as to believe that Government or anyone else has an obligation to buy it, or buy advertising. However, we disagree with the Government's belief that it will be better able to get its message out via electronic forms of media alone and have asked to see the reasoning for this so that we can make our case. We do believe that as the custodians of public money – as opposed to a private company – that the Government has an obligation to explain how it came to that conclusion.

With regard to civil servants, Ms Furbert seems to believe that they work for the PLP. They do not. They work for the Government of Bermuda and are required to be non-partisan in executing their duties. One would imagine that when civil servants are being criticised, they should know about it.

With regard to the Bermuda Times, Ms Furbert should perhaps compare the relative circulations of that publication with The Royal Gazette's when it was in operation to determine which had the greater reach. Further, If she believes that $40,000 in annual advertising revenue from Government would have kept The Bermuda Times afloat, then her understanding of newspaper economics is different from the economic realities this newspaper faces.

The reason that Mr. Burgess has been cited is that as a Cabinet Minister, he called for Mr. Robson's work permit to be revoked for simply expressing an opinion. Mr. Tucker, Sports Minister Elvin James, Wayne Furbert and Glenn Blakeney criticised Mr. Robson and his column, as they are perfectly entitled. But threatening a person's livelihood is another matter entirely.

Here's where she got it wrong to begin with.

"...does the Board of Directors of the Bermuda Press Holdings Ltd. inform members of staff why they make certain decisions..."

See, she's likening Bermudians to the staff of a company and the Government to the Board of Directors, when it's exactly the opposite.
While they may be the Board of Directors, we are the shareholders, not the staff.
And yes, Ms. Furbert, in your analogy, they SHOULD inform the shareholders why they made decisions, if asked.

This letter basically calls for an arrogant LACK of transparency! It calls for the curtains to be drawn on the "sunshine of public scrutiny".

Again you bring up good points Dinty. As for why she uses the RG....thats simple..it's the only Daily and that gives a lot of coverage. It's reliable also. It's also allows free speech. 

Then again, Zuilly boy won't print a thank you from me only because he thinks I am someone else but thats another story.

 

Laverne - who pays for your subscription? And how come it takes three people to write half your son's comments? As for why Mr. Deacon goes online looking for bloggers responses? Maybe it's because he can't get any from his government... or maybe he's just looking for an honest answer. 

Rummy - as you know, any conspiracy theorist worth is salt has plenty of good sauces which cannot be shared. I keep mine sealed with black wax....

Just to keep the gamble going Smokes.....it's "his" not  "is"......but thats ok........I get the message..................

Martin - you are probably correct. However there is the other side to the equation. If she chooses to direct people to BermudaSucks maybe we could use the opportunity to question her commentary. After all she only writes to the paper or goes on the radio where no-one gets a chance to respond or debate/dispute her. She's free to be beligerent in those mediums yet she refuses to come online here and discuss anything where she will have to have a free for all discussion.

The last time she did that she managed to force a progressive mind (Limey) to shut down his site in fear of retribution and hassles to his family. Is that not exactly what she's trying to do with the BermudaSucks community? If so then I hope more people will venture here to see we can hold an open and valid conversation. Just this week we picked up quite a few young Bermudians who wanted to get their view-points over. That's a good thing.

So I say to Laverne - I invite you to step into the blog world again. Or does your Cuz not think it such a good idea?

Fair point SG - fair point.