During the Budget debate on May 12, Alexa Lightbourne said the Ministry of Home Affairs planned to maintain content standards with the establishment of a “content review panel” under the broadcasting and telecommunications board. She advised that it would hold responsibility for setting content guidelines, reviewing programming and addressing public concerns. She continued: “This panel will ensure content across all platforms remains accurate, appropriate, and aligns with Bermuda social and cultural values.”

That is terrifying.

In today’s digital age, where information flows freely and rapidly, the concept of what sounds like government oversight of the media raises alarm bells reminiscent of Big Brother.

The implications of such oversight are profound, posing significant threats to our democracy, freedom of speech, and the very fabric of society. When the Government tries to or does exert control over media narratives, it not only compromises the independence of the press but also encroaches upon the fundamental rights of all of us and ultimately undermines the principles of a free society.

At the heart of the issue lies the fundamental role of the media as a watchdog of democracy. A free press is essential for holding those in power accountable, informing the public of critical issues, and facilitating open discourse.

This is where the parallels to authoritarian regimes become stark. Just as undemocratic governments monitor and control information to maintain their grip on power, the minister’s statement certainly suggests the Progressive Labour Party government intends to seek to control media narratives to shape public perception, thereby suppressing opposition.

Globally, the justification for government oversight often hinges on the need for national security, public safety or the prevention of misinformation. In this instance, such control in Bermuda is couched less overtly. A statement buried in a budget presentation sounds harmless at first, but can easily become a pretext for authoritarian control.

For instance, the rise of fake news has led many governments to advocate for stricter regulations on media outlets, ostensibly to protect the public from false information. However, this can quickly devolve into a slippery slope where legitimate journalism is suppressed under the guise of combating alleged misinformation. In this context, a government-appointed committee could become the arbiter of truth, deciding what is acceptable for public consumption and what is not.

Consider the implications of such control. When the Government can potentially dictate the narratives that reach the public, they create an environment where dissent is stifled and alternative viewpoints are marginalised.

Such control not only limits the diversity of perspectives but also cultivates an atmosphere of fear and conformity. Voters may become hesitant to express their views or question authority, knowing that the Government is watching and may retaliate against them. In this way, government oversight of the media operates as a modern-day Big Brother, instilling a sense of paranoia and compliance among Bermuda’s voter base.

Taking things a step further, the digital landscape complicates the relationship between government and media. Social-media platforms have become the primary sources of information for many, including local podcasts, and they are also susceptible to government influence under the proposals.

The Government, through its proposed committee, could exert pressure on these platforms to censor content, ban accounts or manipulate algorithms in ways that align with the Government’s interests. This could create a chilling effect on free expression, as individuals may self-censor out of fear of reprisal. The result is potentially a distorted information ecosystem where only committee-sanctioned narratives prevail, echoing the oppressive control of the Big Brother regime.

The consequences of government oversight extend beyond the media itself; they permeate the very fabric of society. A well-informed voter is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. When media is subjected to government “oversight”, the public’s ability to make informed decisions is severely compromised, which could lead to apathy, disengagement and, ultimately, the erosion of democratic values.

Voters, already disillusioned with the political process, as demonstrated by the low turnout in the last election, may believe that their voices do not matter in a landscape dominated by government-approved narratives. This disengagement can pave the way for authoritarianism, as the public become less equipped to challenge government power.

We must remain vigilant against encroachments on our rights. A robust and independent media is essential for a healthy democracy, and it is our collective responsibility to protect it from the clutches of governmental control. We must advocate for transparency, accountability and the protection of free expression in all its forms. In doing so, we can ensure that the spectre of Big Brother does not become our reality, and that the values of democracy endure in an age of increased surveillance and control.

• Michael Fahy is the Shadow Minister of Municipalities, Housing and Home Affairs, and the MP for Pembroke South West (Constituency 20)