Jersey Evening Pravda - Deconstructing Jersey Propaganda

Today's Pravda featured propaganda so blatant, flawed and out of touch, that it would not be out of place in Putin's Russia. Under its official propaganda section of page 10, appeared an editorial, ostensibly from Chris Bright, the pamphlet's nominal editor. 

The tone and content were 'brazen.' (as one reader put it) in its open and bias support of the Constables retaining their automatic seat in the States Assembly, even though an increasing ground swell of opinion is increasingly opposed to this position. Moreover, early indications are that the majority of submissions to the Electoral Commission are calling for the ex officio role of the Constables to cease. They could of course stand for election as politicians if they wished and, more importantly, if they passed the democratic test of the electorate.

For those readers not from Jersey, we are a small island jurisdiction, very close to France and in the English Channel. We have a population of nearly 100, 000. We have no party politics (not officially) and we have 51 elected members all sitting in one chamber. But there are 3 categories of States Member: Senators (10) elected island wide; 29 Deputies (elected in district constituencies); and 12 Constables (sometimes called 'Connétables') elected in parishes of varying sizes. 

We are currently undergoing a reform process. Initially, it was agreed that the electoral commission be independent (that is free from politicians), however this was highjacked by a prominent and newly elected politician, who already wanted to keep the role of Constables.

The problem with the Constables position is:

 (1) that they are primarily elected on an honorary basis to lead the municipal administration of their parish and oversee its honorary police force (oh, yes, I forgot to mention - as well as the island having a paid British Police Force, there are also 12 honorary forces, one for each parish); They automatically get a seat in what is effectively our national Parliament as well. However, they are not primarily elected to that role. They are essentially somewhere between a Mayor and a Sheriff.

(2) They represent vastly differing constituencies. St Mary has 1,600 residents, St Helier, the capital, some 34, 000.  Yet they each have one Constable.

It is interesting to note that the Mori poll of 2006 showed support for the Constables [in the States] at 54% (from a sample of 1000). It was certainly not 'general'. Personally, I think it is less, but ultimately we do not know. That is why in 2009, I proposed a referendum to ask the public to decide. However the majority of States Members voted against 29 -17. No surprise that 10 Constables voted en bloc against (what were they so scared of?). Only the Constable of St Clement voted in favour. He also agrees that Constables should lose their ex officio role and has told the commission that. 

It is in this context that the following editorial is set. In this video, I deconstruct some of this propaganda and show it up for the insidious nonsense that it is.

The editorial itself can be seen below.

FOLLOWING up his election promise to resolve the long-running issue of States reform, Senator Sir Philip Bailhache and the Electoral Commission he chairs have now completed the first round of their public consultation on the future make-up of the Assembly.

Even before publishing his findings to initiate a second round of open discussion, the Assistant Chief Minister and former Bailiff has given some clear indications of what they are likely to include, notably four-year terms for all, the retention of the Constables and a reduction in the overall number of Members.

The first of those proposals is uncontentious and the second will be widely welcomed. Despite the insistence of a vociferous minority, there is no evidence of any public demand for the removal of the Constables and no compelling reason why there should be. Each of the 12 parish heads is uniquely well placed to understand and act upon the views and needs of the local communities he or she serves. The claim that they are somehow ‘unelected’ if, as often happens, they face no opposition at the ballot box is self-interested nonsense. Moreover, the life experience and general common sense of the Constables provide an important balancing factor in a single-chamber assembly, while their removal would probably deal an ultimately fatal blow to the parish structure on which so much of Jersey’s special identity and community spirit depends.

If the key question, then, is how well the Constables serve and reflect their electorates, the answer must be: very. That serves also as a reminder that the guiding central issue for the commission should be how to improve the democratic responsiveness and accountability of the States Assembly, as distinct from the speed and efficiency of its decision-making, an important point when it comes in turn to the third of their predictable proposals. The claimed need for a reduction in the overall size of the Assembly is much more questionable.

It has been repeated so often that it has become an article of faith that there are too many States Members, but there is little hard evidence to support the view. Public concern stems not from the number of seats but mainly from the divisive way in which ministerial government has been introduced and the advent of career politician in a jurisdiction without clear party politics.

There may be scope for a tweak here and there in the number of Deputies, and there is certainly a strong case for reinstating the four Senatorial seats arbitrarily removed by the last Assembly, but there must still be enough in total to carry out constituency work, share the ministerial workload more widely, represent the Island overseas, outvote the executive and keep the increasingly powerful civil service in check. Simple mathematics suggest that the current total of 51 is not that excessive.

In reality, there was not much wrong with the old system of 12 Constables, 12 Senators with a hard-won Islandwide mandate and enough Deputies to go round. It gave every voter at last 14 representatives, each of whom had the opportunity to play a direct part in the decision-making process. We cannot turn back the clock, but it is difficult to imagine the Electoral Commission coming up with anything more democratic than that.

JEP - Not Fit for Purpose: Part 2

The second part of this blog on the Jersey Evening Post co-incides quite appropriately with the latest post of Team Voice,  which features an interview I did with them earlier this week. Later on in this blog, I want to focus on the astonishing media bias that all three of the main Jersey media outlets displayed during last month's Senatorial (General) Elections. However, first of all, I want to follow on from and contextualise the recent 'spat' I have had with Lucy Mason and particularly Chris Bright from the Jersey Evening Post.

One of my respected friends, and political supporters, had suggested I was a little harsh. Following Lucy's misreporting that I had spoilt my paper, when I had not, I responded with a twitter message saying: 'Lucy Mason is either incompetent or telling deliberate malicious lies.' True, the lying part was probably a little harsh, which is why I qualified the statement with the option that she was simply being incompetent.

My esteemed friend wrote,'I'm not sure one mistake deserved the phrase "incompetent". I've made a mistake today at work, which was picked up, and I corrected, but it doesn't happen often, and I'd had to be called incompetent because of that.'

I quite agree. We all make mistakes including (especially) politicians. I responded to my friend saying: 

'I agree that we all make mistakes, but a) this was not a one off and (b) it was the 'process' that was at fault. Lucy said that she did not hear what I said as my microphone was switched off. Rather than come to me ans ask what I said, she then went to colleagues who also misinterpreted my words as an admission. I told her on the phone that (i) she should not be reporting stuff if she did not hear it and (ii) if she wanted clarification, she should have come to me in the first instance.'

Jersey Evening Post Reporter
Lucy Mason

My main concern here is to do with process and 'good/best practice'. Lucy quite openly admits to not hearing what I said (which was a response to Constable John Refault's comments about how awful it was that any States member should see fit to spoil their paper - I responded that any member was quite within their rights to spoil their paper if they could not bring themselves to vote for an individual on ideological or personal grounds. This was taken as an addmission by some, although it most certainly was not). In such a circumstance one should (a) either not report anything which is not clear or (b) ascertain the facts before reporting something. Lucy did attempt to establish what had happened - by talking to other members, at least one of who had misunderstood. What Lucy should have done was to come directly to me, ask if I had spoiled my paper and proceeded from there. This is usually what happens when good practice is operating - and other journalists normally  do that. (Harry McRandle made the same error of practice when he misreported my comments at a Jersey Finance meeting earlier in the year. When confronted with the mistake he apologised and said, 'He was momentarily distracted' and so did not catch what I actually said... If in doubt, make it up)

But it is not simply me who has been affected. Deputy Shona Pitman has also fallen foul to the paper's sub-standard reporting when they reported on the closure of the Market Post Office, against which Shona was fighting. One 'mischevious' shop-owner did not agree with Shona and told the JEP reporter that the market stall holders did not support Deputy Pitman. This single view, which was not representative, then became a story.

Historically, the J.E.P. has a record of getting it wrong: and I can think of 5 occasions off the top of my head where apparently innocent mistakes were made in reporting either my manifesto or my words which all had the effect of portraying me in a bad light. This is without mentioning the 'fake' letters that they have attempted and do still publish from time to time.

Editor, Chris Bright

And now, we turn our attention to the Editor, Chris Bright. The following is the email that Chris sent me following the letter I sent to him (which can be seen on my previous blog). Note its tone and how rather than simply apologising or giving an undertaking to brief his staff to take more care in future, he prefers to go on the defensive - even threatening me. I have published my response to him below:

From: Chris Bright [mailto:CBright@jerseyeveningpost.com] 

Sent: 24 November 2011 12:34

To: Montfort TadierSubject: Spoilt papers

Dear Montfort,

In response to your email of yesterday, we have published a correction to the report mistakenly stating that you had admitted spoiling your ballot paper in the States.

Please note that the operative word here is ‘mistakenly’. The error was not intentional and it is you who owes Lucy Mason an apology for publicly calling her a liar on your Twitter feed, a nasty piece of juvenile name-calling which is simultaneously untrue, offensive and defamatory. Kindly remove the tweet and note that, should you continue personally insulting or maligning  Lucy or, indeed, any other member of this newspaper’s staff in similar fashion, I will have no hesitation in complaining about your conduct to the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Chris Bright.

---------------

From: Montfort Tadier
Sent: 24 November 2011 15:11
To: 'Chris Bright'
Subject: RE: Spoilt papers

Dear Chris,

I regret the antagonistic tone of your email and that you did not see fit to call me in person. If you had taken time to read my twitter post you would be aware that I said 'Lucy Mason at the JEP is either incompetent or telling deliberate malicious lies.' The operative words here are 'either' and 'or'. 

With this in mind, I will not be apologising to Lucy nor removing my post. If you see fit to refer this to PPC, that is your decision. But I will not be lectured on moral standards by the editor of a newpaper which constantly falls below reasonable standards of balanced, fair and competent journalism - something which was demonstrated very clearly in the recent general elections.

I will be sending a full complaint in to you and the press complaints body, and I will be encouraging my colleagues and members of the public to do the same where they have grievances.

Warmest regards,

Montfort Tadier

JEP - Not fit for Purpose: Part 1. Letter of Complaint to the JEP

Chris Bright
Editor of the Jersey Evening Post

JEP 'Journo', Harry McRandle

The Royal British Legion Poppy

which 'Mr Fly' thought was a 'Sheriff's badge'

This blog will be the first part in a look at Jersey's only paper, the Jersey Evening Post. I will not be looking at the obvious biased coverage that the paper gave to its preferred candidate, Sir Philip Bailhache during the whole of the Senatorial Elections, last month, nor the lack of balanced reporting (not yet).
Today, I am simply doing in this post is putting up a copy of the letter I sent to the editor, Chris Bright, yesterday complaining about repeated inaccurate reporting from his paper, which is either down to staff incompetence or institutional bias. I am compelled to publish it here as I doubt it will see the light of day in his paper.

I will expand more on the circumstances and Mr Bright's attempt to threaten me in the next post, but for now, here is the letter. 

------------

States Chambers

Royal Square

St Helier

23^rd November 2011

Dear Sirs,

I am obliged to write to you to correct an inaccuracy in yesterday’s JEP by your political correspondent Lucy Mason. Your reporter stated incorrectly that I had ‘admitted spoiling [my] paper in the third round [for the election of Privileges and Procedures Chairman].’ This is untrue. Firstly, I admitted no such thing and secondly, I did not spoil my paper (I am happy to confirm that I voted for the winner).

This is by no means the first time that your political correspondents have misrepresented me. Only three weeks ago (2^nd November), I was given a written apology by another of your political correspondents, Toby Chiang, following a curious report in the fly which said I was wearing a ‘badge’ that was either a Sheriff’s badge or some left over from a Halloween costume. It was in fact the Royal British Legion enamel poppy, which was also being worn as a sign of respect by a number of my colleagues. Why I was singled out for misreporting, I have no idea.

Again, earlier in the year, I was given a written apology by Harry McRandle, who had misreported comments I made during a Jersey Finance forum. An apology was printed and Mr McRandle said in his email to me on 2^nd February 2011 that ‘this happened inadvertently because he was distracted and missed some of what you said.’

I would ask that in future, such errors are avoided, as intentional or not, they have the effect of conveying a false impression which is all too easily picked up upon by those who would seek to disparage the valid work which any political representative legitimately seeks to undertake.

Moreover, I would like to take this opportunity to register my disappointment at the coverage which the Ministerial and Chairmen’s elections have received in your paper. Apart from the Chief Minister’s election, no coverage was given other candidates who did not manage to secure positions, even though their speeches and the questions which followed were equally relevant and sometimes better than those of the successful candidates.

It seems to me that rather than making up words and attributing them falsely to States Members, your reporters would do better to actually report on what was said, or else get out of the business of journalism altogether.

Sincerely,

Deputy Montfort Tadier

---------

Next time: Chris Bright's defensive and threatening response