It is a common trait amongst public figures, particularly politicians, to hurl insult after insult on to the media with the obvious benefit that people will almost certainly be ‘onside’ with their general view of the Press. Usually an anti-view. They either claim bias, falsehood, trickery or lies, or a combination of all four. Such a stance is nothing new of course.
Ever since the Press first began publishing ‘gossip’ sheets, there have been people who have attempted to stop articles being written about them or who shout long and loud about how unfairly they have been treated. Nothing new there.
Film stars, footballers, celebrities of all kinds and, of course, politicians still create noise about how the Press treats them. We had occassion only a few weeks ago to answer a critical stance taken by Raynard Rigby, chairman of the PLP, who had the audacity to ‘warn’ the publishers of the Guardian and our closest competitor, The Tribune, about our joint objectivity. We believed then that his remarks, however unwarranted, were not part of any concerted effort to berate and batter the media into semi-submission.
That kind of behaviour is usually reserved for tin-pot dictatorships. Now we are not so sure. Mr Fred Mitchell, the highly respected Foreign Affairs minister, has now joined the fray.
He spent time this weekend attacking the national media, accusing us of “twisting” information with inaccurate reporting. For Mr Mitchell’s sake, we will explain how the Guardian editorial department operates. The editorial staff within this newspaper put a considerable amount of time and effort into ensuring their reports are fair and accurate.
They do not need to be lectured on the importance of accuracy, fairness and balance. The editors make doubly sure and constantly remind over-eager reporters to check their facts, keep their reports fair and show no bias whatsoever.
It is not a foolproof method but it is the best there is. Anyone found ‘guilty’ of deliberately misinterpreting information or regularly writing misleading reports would have to leave the offices of the Guardian forthwith.
Indeed this has happened in the past. As far as ethics are concerned, there is a standard laid down and a moral compass to guide those who are unsure. Firstly, all material in the Guardian must be material that is a result of decisions made free of any political, commercial or noncommercial pressure.
Secondly, no editorial articles should be used through special favours or money being exchanged.
Finally, all stories should be written and then edited in a spirit of free enquiry and selected for use entirely on their own merits, real or otherwise.
Mr Mitchell’s remarks are regrettably said without a shred of evidence, something this newspaper would not countenance if it was to publish sensitive material. It is an inaccurate portrayal of this newspaper and our competitors apart from one area, accuracy. Yesterday, due to a production error, we misspelled Mr Mitchell’s surname.
It was an unforgivable error for which we duly apologise. Unlike politicians, we do make mistakes, but we do not alter or interfere with the flow of information.
It should be remembered by those who accuse us of doing so that newspapers are indeed owned by individuals and corporations but freedom of the Press belongs to the people.
Opinion from The Nassau Guardian
