Jersey Election Scandal - Ramifications and the role of the Media

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 18^th 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