With some help from
Neil we recorded these interviews in progress with BBC Jersey and Channel TV.
We wanted to record
what these “accredited media” actually recorded and to compare it with what they
eventually broadcast.
It is not so much
that they tend to use “sound- bites” only but more their attitude towards
“bloggers” and “citizens” media that we wanted to test.
The video linked below is
more or less the broadcasters' uncut version of their interviews with Nick Le Cornu and Mike
Dun following their disclosure of the Jersey “Election Expenses Scandal.”
Neil’s video was
not intended for posting - it was more
for research and the sound is not really
good enough - but we think the public needs to have access to it.
Would the “media”
acknowledge Nick’s research we wondered and give due credit for exposing this
important information because, as it transpired, there was no initial enthusiasm
on their part to research the facts and inform that public accordingly.
So what is the role
of the so called “accredited media” in Jersey? Who awards their “accreditation”
and who shall be invited to “Press briefings” or to receive “Press releases”?
Who regulates the
media in Jersey?
We have always to
be mindful that it was the “News of the World” that set the lowest standards of
journalism known in the UK prior to it being closed down by its owner. Many
“accredited” journalists were prosecuted and some went to jail.
Could such a thing
ever be imagined for the JEP or Bailiwick Express?
We all know that
there is now a very large “Communications Unit” in Charlie Parker’s version of
the Civil Service and he wants more “good news” to be fed to the public under
his “My way or the Highway” mantra. BUT
the recent John Young announcement of his Ministerial Planning decision re the
New Hospital was a “Private Press Briefing” at the Town Hall from which the
public and bloggers were intended to be excluded. Why?
In fact, some
bloggers and members of the public were eventually allowed to hear Deputy John
Young, after mounting a protest. But there are only a handful of “accredited
media” outlets in Jersey so it’s hardly a management issue of Donald Trump
proportions at any time.
Why the presumed need
for such control and secrecy at all in Jersey?
Why are the
“accredited media” allowed to attend some court hearings whilst the public and
bloggers are not?
Why can’t government
and other official Press briefings simply be posted on the States Web-site and
open to all when a Q and A session is needed?
It is noted that
very little of the BBC and CTV interviews linked here were finally broadcast
and all the media only gave minimal acknowledgment to the role of the bloggers
if any.
Now it is evident
that the “accredited Jersey media” prefer to minimize the topic.
Are they acting
under orders?
So where does this leave
the public and the “public interest”?
We must not forget
that there have been previous attempts to legislate to control “bloggers” in
Jersey and the use of “social media” is constantly threatened with censorship
in one form or another.
Back in the 18th
century Jersey’s early newspapers were similarly threatened with curtailment or
closure but now it is the “accredited media” that often leads the call to
suppress the bloggers and “citizens’ media.”
Why has the media
so often been cast in the role of “defender of the status quo” or Jersey’s
supposed “good reputation.”?
Following the
publication of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Report the expression “the
Jersey Way” came into common usage – but some want now to bury it, because like
the term “tax haven” it sends out the wrong image.
The ramifications
of the “Elections Expenses Scandal” have yet to be fully examined, discussed or
digested.
The roles of the
Judicial Greffier and the Attorney General need to be considered fully but who is
empowered to undertake this is not at all clear.
But they must not
be used as mere scapegoats for the incompetence of so many election candidates
who failed to comply with the simple requirements of a clear and recent law
over several elections.
It seems improbable
that those States Members who failed to complete their election returns correctly
should take any part – except as witnesses - in the subsequent inquiry or reform
making process.
It may be that the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Inspectors can be invited to return and
consider these matters afresh but the appointment of an external and
independent body to undertake this work must be inevitable.
Any such inquiry
must be held in public.
https://youtu.be/QeMCwxekmR0
