saying it had lost credibility.

In a multi-pronged attack in the House of Assembly, Sir John said many people believed the paper was prepared to manipulate the news to its own ends.

And he claimed loss of trust in the media's "independence and integrity'' was a threat to stability.

Sir John also renewed his assault on the paper's Letters to the Editor page.

The Editor, Mr. David L. White, maintained the paper's policy was that personal attacks by letter-writers were forbidden, Sir John scoffed.

"Yet anonymous personal attacks on some individuals, and I seem to be one of them, appear almost every day, often couched in the most vituperative and insulting terms.

"I believe, as others do, that many of these letters are written by a very small group of people, perhaps as few as three or four.

"They write under a variety of pseudonyms and give a variety of addresses.

"The Editor must know who they are, and must know that their object could only be to give the impression that their views are shared by a larger number of people than they are.

"People are entitled to wonder what the reason might be that the Editor allows this kind of privilege.'' The Premier's outburst, however, went further than just The Royal Gazette . It also included "other media in Bermuda''.

The flash-point for his attack was The Royal Gazette 's coverage last Friday of his speech in the House of Assembly.

During the debate on Government's so-called Compendium of Papers on Independence, Sir John said he made several remarks about the media.

"I criticised them for their presentation and coverage of the news, and I believe I was voicing concerns shared by a large number of Bermudians.

"While I believe I explained what was on my mind in very frank language, I certainly did not threaten anyone, nor did I give any indication that I proposed to take action against any organisation or individual.

"The following morning, I was amazed to find The Royal Gazette reported, completely inaccurately, that I had threatened to withdraw the licences of some of the media.'' Sir John said the paper's General Manager Mr. Keith Jensen took matters one step further at Paget Lions Club on Wednesday evening when he accused him of trying to stifle public opinion.

" The Royal Gazette has, this morning, withdrawn its manager's allegations.

"I believe it would have been a graceful gesture if the Gazette had gone a little further and apologised for an error of this magnitude, but its management has chosen not to do this.

"Perhaps what the management fails to understand is how easily, in the circumstances, people might believe they were making a deliberate attempt to diminish my credibility by portraying me as an enemy of freedom of speech.

"It is well known that my strong views on the subject of Independence do not please the Editor.

"There are a great many people in Bermuda who do not believe that the media, especially The Royal Gazette , are covering and commenting on the news in a fair way.

"There are many people who believe the Gazette is a reactionary organisation, which is prepared to take action to frustrate attempts to bring about social change with which its proprietors disagree, or to frustrate individuals who advance views with which its proprietors disagree.'' Sir John said the paper's editorials gave that impression.

"However, most people understand that an editorial is an expression of the Editor's opinion, and that an Editor it entitled to say what he or she thinks.

"I believe the newspaper's policy on publishing letters to the Editor fuels the impression that the Gazette does not play an entirely fair game.'' Sir John then attacked the paper's integrity.

"A disturbing number of people in Bermuda believe the Gazette , and other media in Bermuda, are prepared to manipulate the news to their own ends, whatever they may be, by downplaying certain stories and highlighting others, by selective quoting, by limiting access to coverage, by taking things out of context, by reporting only or mainly one side of the story and so on.

"People do not believe that these are accidents or examples of simple carelessness, they believe they are deliberate, directed and arrogant acts.'' Sir John went on: "People depend on the media to intelligently and independently assess what is going on in the community.

"People depend on the media to give individuals and groups outside the mainstream the opportunity to make their voices heard.

"People depend on the media to protect them from being misled and manipulated.

"Above all, people depend on the media to fairly and accurately report both sides of the story.

"When people lose their trust in the independence and the integrity of the media, especially in a tiny community like this, that lack of trust poses a threat to stability.

"That was my point last Friday, and there is certainly no reason for me to retreat from what I said by one inch.'' He stressed he was not opposed to freedom of speech.

"On the contrary, the press's self-inflicted loss of credibility concerns me, as it should concern anyone who is interested in the preservation of freedom of speech.

"That freedom, after all, is the foundation on which any democracy stands.''