I have to laugh about this headline:

Proposed UBP Bill Could See Voters Struck From Register

This is very much in the vein of the PLP’s campaign smears in the last election where they accused “the UBP wants to lock us all up” … only to now rush through laws that go far beyond anything that the UBP had proposed!

The UBP bill would require the Parliamentary Registrar to keep the voters’ list up to date.

Duh.

There is a reason for this, as scrutineers in the last election found many voters registered in constituencies where they did not live.  With Bermuda’s tight electoral margins this makes a real difference.  While PLP won the vast majority of seats in the last election, the popular vote was actually pretty tight.  A few votes here and there can change who is elected MP.

Allowing people to register in the wrong constituencies skews our democracy.

Come on BNN, you can do better than that slanted headline!  If you want to write a political analysis blog, that’s great, but then drop the pretense of being a news outlet.

It has been presented to Premier, along with a plan to get a Media Council up and running by September 14.  Adopters of the Code include the Bermuda Sun, the Royal Gazette, Inter-Island Communications, DeFontes Broadcasting, and Bermuda Broadcasting.  Other local media outlets (including the new websites) are being invited to join.

The Bermuda Code of Practice appears to be well balanced and cover the established international best practices.  In fact, in several areas relating to the rights of the individual it goes well beyond the standards adopted by the British Press Complaints Council.

I see no reason for Government to pursue its punitive draft Media Council Act.

It will be interesting to see if the Media Council also builds bridges between the competing news outlets to develop training, to form a unified voice against Government predations, and to act as a champion of Public Access to Information (PATI).

“The media council, as proposed by this Government, achieves that and, as international media organisations have determined, does not even come close to threatening the freedom of the press.”

MP John Barritt called him out on that claim gaining the following backpedal response from Dr. Brown:

“My interpretation was that all of those organisations who initially seemed to be fearful, after they read it carefully, I’m sure they realised that there was no threat to freedom of speech. They haven’t told me so but that’s an assumption on my part.”

Seriously.  You can call it by many names, but at the end of the day, in my humble opinion, bullshit is still bullshit.

The Royal Gazette helpfully points out:

Overseas organisations to have criticised the bill include the US-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the International Press Institute, the British Press Complaints Commission, the Association of Caribbean Media Workers, the Centre for Law and Democracy in Canada and the CPU Media Trust.

“The Media Council as proposed by this Government achieves that goal and as International Media Organizations have determined does not even come close to threatening the freedom of the press.”

That statement is simply untrue as the draft law has been roundly criticised by free speech groups including the International Press Institute, the Association of Caribbean Media Workers, and the Centre for Law and Democracy.

That’s a positive move and, now that the ball is rolling, it is clearly in the media’s court.  A Media Council would be a good step forward for Bermuda, but it must not impose on freedom of the press.  A self-regulatory option based on proven practices elsewhere is the best solution.

Now that we’ve addressed the accountability of the media, perhaps we can also draw some more attention to the accountability of our politicians!

Mr. Speaker,

I rise today to acknowledge that the Government has received and intend to review the proposal by Bermuda’s combined media to form a Media Council. The Government believes that due to the lack of recourse available to members of the public who have been misrepresented in the media, the lack of a uniform and enforced code of standards, ethics and conduct and the continuing deterioration of media objectivity, the formation of a Media Council is necessary to bring journalistic standards and Bermuda into the 21st Century. The Media Council as proposed by this Government achieves that goal and as International Media Organizations have determined does not even come close to threatening the freedom of the press.

Mr. Speaker.

This Government has given Bermuda’s combined media two years to form their own self regulated Media Council with a uniform and enforced Code of Conduct. We were told they were too busy! The tabling of the Media Council Bill 2010 has apparently given them the opportunity to make journalistic standards a priority and we appreciate their response. We are pleased to see that leadership has emerged within Bermuda’s media outlets and would like to take special note of the leadership and actions of Mr. Tony McWilliams of the Bermuda Sun and Mr. Senator Thaao Dill of Interisland Communications in helping to begin this process.

Mr. Speaker.

The Government has decided to review the proposal as presented by Bermuda’s combined media. During this review period the Media Council Bill 2010 will remain on the Order Paper of the House of Assembly. When the Government is satisfied that the media generated plan meets the objective, the Government will remove the Bill from the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker.

While there has been a considerable amount of fear mongering surrounding the issue of the Media Council, this Government has no interest in restricting freedom of the press or freedom of speech in Bermuda. The Media Council we propose would not prevent the media from pursuing the truth and revealing the truth wherever they find it. This Government does however envision a day when fair, objective and accountable journalism is the norm rather than the exception. We welcome the media’s proposal and believe that this is the first step towards that goal.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

• jointly sign and adopt a Code of Practice by June 8, 2010
• form a self-regulated media council by September 14, 2010

They say that other local media and news websites are welcome to join.  They admit that they have “dropped the ball” in organising earlier and give credit to Government for getting that ball rolling again (kiss kiss).

This is a very positive move, and many will be looking at the vigour of the Code of Practice as proof of their sincerity.  And believe me, given the heavyhandness of Dr. Brown’s proposed law, a lot of people are watching Bermuda on this.

I call on Government to withdraw its proposed law, and allow Bermuda’s media to build a self-regulatory council that balances protection of the free press with protections for the public against excess or erroneous reporting.

For reference, here’s the British Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice and the Codebook [pdf] provided as guidelines for journalists.

More after the hop below.

Media proposes its own watchdog

THURSDAY, MAY 27: Today we jointly proposed to government a plan to set up our own Bermuda Media Council.   We submitted a written pledge to have the self-regulated council up and running by September 14, 2010.

We also made a commitment to jointly sign and adopt a Code of Practice by June 8, 2010.

Our move comes in response to government’s tabling, earlier this month, of the Media Council Bill. The Bill calls for substantial government representation on the council, which raises concerns about the prospect of political interference in the dissemination of news.

We plan to set up our own council and our proposal to the Cabinet Office today states that details about its aims, scope, membership structure and complaints procedure will be provided to government by June 8.

The move will be coordinated by Tony McWilliam, editor of the Bermuda Sun, assisted by Glenn Jones, general manager of Bermuda.com and veteran journalist Meredith Ebbin. They will work closely with all of the co-signatories of today’s proposal, namely Thaao Dill, Chris Lodge, Rick Richardson and Bill Zuill. The online-only news websites will also be approached for their input.

Public debate has been lively in recent weeks and we feel the case for media self-regulation, drawing from examples around the world, has been well made.

Conversely, the potential drawbacks of a statutory media council, with heavy political representation, have also been highlighted.

We feel confident that this proposal will meet goals we share with government of raising journalistic standards, elevating accountability and providing an effective forum for grievances against the media — while eliminating the negativity associated with a statutory body.

We take this opportunity to formally and collectively acknowledge that we ‘dropped the ball’ on the formation of a media council. It has been discussed on and off for years and we have had ample time to act. There are myriad reasons but no excuses — nor is there anything to gain by dwelling on what might have been.

But we are now committed to a firm course of action. In this context we feel it is worth pointing out that, while it’s our intention to establish our own media council, the current government can rightly claim credit for the initiative.

Most important though, is our sincere commitment to establishing a self-regulating body through which we can better serve the people of Bermuda.

Thaao Dill, Inter-Island Communications

Chris Lodge, DeFontes Broadcasting Co.

Rick Richardson, Bermuda Broadcasting Co.

Tony McWilliam, Bermuda Sun

Bill Zuill, Royal Gazette

Public Safety Minister David Burch was on Hott 107.5 yesterday, claiming that [The Royal Gazette] should count itself lucky because some in the PLP want to lock them up and have sanctions, penalties, consequences and fines.

In an apparent reference to Government’s withdrawal of advertising in The Royal Gazette, Sen. Burch said he was disappointed not to have seen more favourable coverage despite hitting this newspaper “where it hurts most”.

Seriously – is this a threat?  The law already has sanctions for inaccurate reporting:  including libel and others.  Government has pursued those – on the public dime – and lost because the media was within the laws.  They were acting in the public interest.  They were doing their job.

Also, his comments that the RG should have toed the line after Government hit them “where it hurts most” reveal the truth about Government’s attempt to manipulate the free press economically.  Not only is this in violation with international standards … but it also defies logic.  Why should anyone read a press outlet whose reporting is linked to the handouts they get from Government?

Spin is gratifying to the politicians … but uninformative, unhelpful, and ultimately uninteresting to the public.  Sometimes the facts are embarrassing and politically harmful.  But that does not stop them from being facts.

Re. Open Letter to Bermuda MPs
To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD), an international human rights NGO that promotes foundational rights for democracy. Specifically, I am writing in relation to the Media Council Bill which has recently been released by the Government of Bermuda.

CLD believes that individuals should have an opportunity to complain to an oversight body when they believe that the media have not behaved in accordance with established professional standards. However, we also believe that self regulation is the most appropriate manner to satisfy this need. We are aware that the media in Bermuda have not, to date, established a self‐regulatory system. I urge you to give the media an opportunity – say for a period of six to nine months – to set up a self-regulatory complaints system.

CLD would also like to point to a number of concerns we have with the Media Council Bill as it now stands. First, and most importantly, the Council lacks independence from government, as required under international law for bodies which exercise regulatory powers over the media. As the three special international mandates on freedom of expression at the UN, OSCE and OAS stated in a Joint Declaration adopted on 18 December 2003:

All public authorities which exercise formal regulatory powers over the media should be protected against interference, particularly of a political or economic nature, including by an appointments process for members which is transparent, allows for public input and is not controlled by any particular political party.

Section 5 of the Media Council Bill provides for a twelve member Council, of which seven members are appointed by the Governor, six after consultation with the Premier, who shall in turn have consulted with the Opposition Leader, and one, the Chairperson, in the Governor’s discretion. The other five members are appointed by the media. This leaves the government with very significant control over the composition of the Council, contrary to the standards set out by the special international mandates.

I urge you to amend these provisions so as to reduce the extent of government control. One option might be for various independent bodies – such as the bar society, a business association and an association of NGOs – to nominate members of the Council.

A second concern relates to the funding of the Council. Section 9(2) of the Bill provides that the media shall fund the Council. This is not necessarily inappropriate, given that the Council’s function is to address complaints against the media. At the same time, if the media are funding the Council, they must also have control over, or at least very significant input into, decisions regarding the Council’s budget. Unfortunately, the Bill is silent as to how the budget for the Council will be agreed, stating simply that the Council will prepare an annual budget. It is obvious that the Council cannot simply determine its own budget. The lack of clarity on this in the Bill is a receipt for future problems. Either the government should approve the budget of the Council and fund it, or some system for setting the budget which involves the media should be established.

Third, section 15(3) of the Media Council Bill sets out three sanctions that may be imposed by the Council where there has been a breach of the Code of Practice. These are that the offending media outlet shall publish an apology, retraction or correction, that the outlet shall publish a notice of censure, and that the media outlet may be prohibited from publishing or broadcasting any comment or news on a complaint. The latter is highly problematical and essentially constitutes a form of prior censorship, a type of restriction on freedom of expression which is highly suspect under international law and ruled out altogether under the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, except as necessary to protect children. I urge you to remove this power from the Bill.

Appropriate regulation of the media is a complex task in a modern democracy and, for the most part, Bermuda has approached this in a manner that conforms to international standards. It would be a sign of the strength of your democracy if the local media were given an opportunity to form their own self-regulatory body. I urge you to do this by refraining from adopting this legislation.

Yours truly,

Toby Mendel
Executive Director

Government insists that it has modelled the Media Council Bill on the UK Press Complaints Commission.

Certainly some of the words have been borrowed, but certainly not the form.

The UK PCC is a voluntary, non-legislated body.  It is not statutory, and is certainly not under the control of political appointees, as proposed by Dr. Brown.

Some background from the PCC:

Given the serious implications of such a course of action, the [UK] Government appointed a Departmental Committee under David Calcutt QC to consider the matter.  His task was “to consider what measures (whether legislative or otherwise) are needed to give further protection to individual privacy from the activities of the press and improve recourse against the press for the individual citizen” …

Rather than suggesting new statutory controls, [he] recommended the setting up of a new Press Complaints Commission in place of the [prior] Press Council. The new Commission would have eighteen months to demonstrate “that non-statutory self-regulation can be made to work effectively. This is a stiff test for the press. If it fails, we recommend that a statutory system for handling complaints should be introduced.”

Outsiders, however, often see clearly when things are not right.

The director of the International Press Institute just published a scathing blogitorial on Dr. Brown’s Media Suppression Bill.

Although the media are supposed to be independent, governments cannot resist the temptation to pass laws that promise independence, while seeking control of the media…

Across the globe, there are numerous governments unable to keep their hands off the media. These governments do not believe in the media operating in their own space, and they want control – not independence – for journalists.

In Bermuda, so close to that First Amendment bastion, the United States, that it shares the same international dialing code, Premier Ewart Brown recently said “…this Government recognises that keeping the public informed is a vital and integral part of any democracy and as such, it is the media’s responsibility to carry out their duties with due diligence and without interference.”

The commitment allowing media to operate “without interference” looks good and plays well to party supporters, but peel away the friendly rhetoric and it’s a very different story. Bermuda’s Media Bill 2010 contains a stacked deck when it comes to the Council’s composition, and it enables prior restraint; when fused together these powers are a disaster for all Bermuda journalists hoping to write political news and commentary…

The siren song of governments has always been a lauding of media freedoms, while arguing simultaneously for journalists to be responsible. Too often, this is government shorthand for being responsible to the government, and it betrays a deep-seated discomfort with the principles of a free media.

Governments everywhere would be better off receiving plaudits for opening up their media environments, rather than busily seeking new ways to close them. Unfortunately, it seems that in Bermuda, Uganda, and Fiji the tide is fast moving in the other direction.

In my opinion, Dr. Brown’s bill is part of a revenge fantasy against the local media.  Personal animus is not a good basis for law.

Yesterday, President Obama signed the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act which requires the Department of State to include in their annual human rights reports by country:

(A) a description of the status of freedom of the press, including initiatives in favour of freedom of the press and efforts to improve or preserve, as appropriate, the independence of the media, together with an assessment of progress made as a result of those efforts;

(B) an identification of countries in which there were violations of freedom of the press, including direct physical attacks, imprisonment, indirect sources of pressure, and censorship by governments, military, intelligence, or police forces, criminal groups, or armed extremist or rebel groups; and

(C) in countries where there are particularly severe violations of freedom of the press– (i) whether government authorities of each such country participate in, facilitate, or condone such violations of the freedom of the press; and (ii) what steps the government of each such country has taken to preserve the safety and independence of the media, and to ensure the prosecution of those individuals who attack or murder journalists.

Bermuda is swimming the wrong way with this proposed government controlled board.  A government regulated press is not a free press.  Stick a fork in it, and provide incentives for the local media to promptly form a proper self-regulatory council as recommended by the Commonwealth Press Union and other bodies.

It is very unfortunate that Bermuda, with its geographical closeness to the United States and its cultural and political ties to the United Kingdom, has managed to draft a law that would be wholly unacceptable in both countries.

Media Councils should be freely chosen by the local media and they should be independent and self-regulating. They should not be enacted by law and contain an in-built bias to the state and create powers that, if applied, would deeply inhibit the media’s ability to act in the public interest.”

[We] would encourage the Bermudan government to withhold this bill from Parliament and to go back to holding a dialogue with the local media.