Continued from Page 4

Someone always has pay

May 18, 2009

Dear Sir,

Wake up Bermuda and pay attention to the ongoing poor decision making, lack of accountability, incompetence, wasting of millions of taxpayer dollars and the "spin doctor" who always has a twisted tale. Sadly this now appears to be the trademark stamp of the PLP Government. The latest case in point is the BBB (Berkeley Bond Bailout).

From the very beginning we have witnessed a debacle of epic proportions and a litany of deception. It started when the Chief Architect for the Ministry of Works and Engineering, after evaluating the two tender offers, recommended the contract be awarded to a Bermuda company with experience in recent large construction projects in Bermuda. The then-Minister and his Cabinet colleagues then decided to go against this advice and the Berkeley Senior School project was in trouble!

The sad history of the construction of the school is available for all to review but on May 15, when Premier Brown and his colleagues agreed to let Union Asset Holdings off the hook for all of the $6.8 million owed on a bond due and another $700,000 advance, another sad chapter was written.

The only thing I can give the Premier credit for is that it took a large dose of testicular fortitude to stand up next to Brother Chris Furbert and roll out excuses such as comparing this to the Butterfield Bank guarantee ... I thought the bank was on the hook to pay it back?

Or how about the excuse that to continue a legal pursuit of the performance bond could mean a multimillion dollar and multiyear legal challenge ... that never stopped them before as the PLP Government has been taken to court, or taken others to court often and lost most of the time!

I do agree with the excuse that the country is not served by a damaged BIU but the PLP Government and the leadership of the union made the unexplainable and poor decisions that put 4,000 workers and their assets in peril!

The excuse I really like, and I quote, "If you close your eyes and use your imagination this happens in the real world everyday. The people may look different. But in the real world, the business world, this happens everyday ..." (Did the taxpayer pay Glenn Jones to write this one?) Well I have some bad news for Premier Brown and the PLP ... Experience has shown that in the real world someone always has to pay! Sadly, the people of Bermuda, the taxpayer, have to foot the bill on this one. Can anyone tell us just how many millions have been squandered?

SEN. MICHAEL H.

DUNKLEY

Senate Opposition Leader

Follow Obama's example

May 12, 2009

Dear Sir,

There is much to lament about the sorry state of affairs between The Royal Gazette and the Honourable Premier Dr. Ewart Brown, not the least being the damage done to Bermuda's reputation as a sophisticated community. But two aspects of this latest brouhaha bear specific comment.

The first is the reason the Premier has given for curtailing communication with The Royal Gazette. He and other members of his Cabinet have long accused the daily newspaper of deliberately biased coverage. Perhaps Dr. Brown should take a page from President Barack Obama's book. When Mr. Obama was running for office, he established a web site (Fight the Smears at http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/factcheckactioncenter/) which was dedicated to correcting the many inaccuracies and outright lies that were circulating about him. A clear presentation of the facts made it very difficult for the conservative US media and bloggers to continue to accuse Mr. Obama of lying about where he was born, what religion he followed or whether he placed his hand on a Bible to take the Oath of Allegiance. Dr. Brown could do the same thing. Treat The Royal Gazette like any other member of Bermuda's media, identify any resulting alleged lies and bias, post the truth and let the public decide.

Shutting out the media never results in better coverage, no matter who you are. The Premier is media savvy and must know it's well documented that the more transparent the relationship with the media, the greater the likelihood that coverage will be balanced. It might not be exactly what you want, but that's not the media's job. The more difficult it is for reporters to get answers to their questions, and the more defensive the posture of those approached for comment, the greater the chance that coverage will appear to be inaccurate or one-sided (which it is, as only one side of the story is being told).

Consider the result of US President Richard Nixon's treatment of what he believed was an "elite, liberal East Coast press" bent on destroying his presidency. The PBS programme "American Presidents" noted Mr. Nixon's hatred and suspicion of the media. He refused to allow members of his administration to be interviewed by or comment to publications like The New York Times but this didn't prevent the leaks that ultimately led to his downfall:

"Sadly, Nixon's long-standing distrust of the media precipitated criminal behaviour on his part which crippled, then destroyed his administration and his political career. In an effort to stop potentially damaging press leaks and help ensure his re-election, Nixon created a domestic espionage network. Members of this network, working for the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP), were caught in a burglary of Democratic National Committee Headquarters at Washington's Watergate Hotel on June 17, 1972. Fearful that revelation of the scandal would damage his re-election bid, Nixon ordered a cover-up of CREEP's White House connections." The rest, as they say, is history.

I use this example only to demonstrate the irony of Premier Brown adopting the same tactics (of shutting out select members of the media) as Richard Nixon, who must represent the antithesis of the Premier's political beliefs, in an attempt to control how the public perceives his administration. The second point worth commenting on – if you consider journalism a profession worth safeguarding – relates to the ethics of the former journalists who are now employed in the Cabinet Office and the Department of Communications. Having worked as members of the local media, how does this current situation sit with them?

Press Secretary Glenn Jones, an award-winning reporter when he worked at The Royal Gazette, must feel some level of discomfort at having to carry out orders that he knows are ethically questionable. Beverley Morfitt, Magnus Henagulph, Robin Holder and Nea Talbot at the Department of Communication and Information have all worked as reporters – Mr. Henagulph, Mr. Holder and Ms Talbot, like Mr. Jones, at The Royal Gazette. How do they feel about the Premier's cherry-picking media policy? Have they managed to convince themselves that they, as civil servants (with the exception of Mr. Jones), aren't complicit in denying the public the opportunity to make informed judgments about Government's performance?

Perhaps a way to break this impasse would be for some civic-minded individual or company to commission an independent audit of how The Royal Gazette has covered a variety of issues over the past five years. This type of research is a common practice for tracking quality and accuracy of media coverage. An analysis of how leaders of the PLP and the UBP and other related stories have been reported would produce some objective data points that would either show the Premier has a point or that much of the outrage is based on perception and not reality. We have more than enough to grapple with, given the state of the economy, crime and education. One less (unnecessary) battle raging on our tiny shores would be a great relief to us all.

B.D.D.

Devonshire