Written by: Anthony L. Hall on August 10, 2009 http://www.theipinionsjournal.com/
I received a surprising number of e-mails over the weekend from people accusing me, among other things, of being a “British stooge [for] giving Governor Tauwhare and other British officials a pass while calling for our Premier and his government ministers to be prosecuted.”
Evidently they derived fodder for their accusations from two commentaries that were published on Friday: one under the nom de plume “The Torch“ at The TCI Journal and the other by former international reporter Candy Herwin at Turks and Caicos Net News.
For example, The Torch accused Chief Justice Gordon Ward and Governor Gordon Wetherell of engaging in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice for the purportedly coveted FCO perk of a “Harrods account”; while Ms Herwin argued that former Governor Richard Tauwhare was just as responsible as former Premier Michael Misick for the high crimes and misdemeanors documented in the Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Governmental Corruption in the TCI.
Before I proceed, however, I feel obliged to clarify that I’m on record declaring my disregard for any commentary published under a pseudonym; especially if that commentary is rife with insulting, incendiary and/or defamatory accusations.
Indeed, with people like Shaun Malcolm, Richard Berke and my siblings living for years under clear and present danger of reprisals, I have never been impressed by those who throw firebombs into our public debate from behind the shield of anonymity.
This is why, with all due respect to those he/she incites, I do not think The Torch’s contributions are worthy of any further comment.
Alternatively, I appreciate Ms Herwin’s commentaries. And, despite our disagreements, I’ve always respected and admired her advocacy.
In fact, I agree with much of what she proffered in the commentary at issue about Tauwhare. For here’s what I wrote about his responsibility in a column almost two years ago:
I have focused exclusively on the Premier’s dereliction of duties because I believe that we are, in fact, not only “mature” enough to take responsibility for the mess he’s gotten us into, but also intelligent enough to figure out how to clean it up.
But it would be tantamount to ignoring the big white elephant in the room if I did not acknowledge HE Governor Richard Tauwhare’s dereliction of duties that have contributed to our national woes. After all, it would have required his complicity or tacit approval for the Premier to commit many of these alleged political and fiduciary crimes.
[Alas, throwing Premier Misick overboard is necessary to save the TCI, TIJ, October 5, 2007]
And here’s what I wrote about the responsibility of the British in general over a year ago:
I’ve been criticizing the UK government almost as much as I’ve been criticizing the TCI government for the mismanagement and corruption that have undermined the benefits of investing in our country. In fact, the British must accept contingent liability for all of the foreseeable losses (in tourism receipts and foreign investments) that stem from their failure to ensure good governance in the TCI…
Premier Misick implicates the British government in his misdeeds every time he blithely asserts that there’s no corruption in the TCI because the British governor [Tauwhare] signed off on everything…
It behooves the British to appreciate that investigating all allegations of corruption against this TCI government, in a transparent manner, is not only in our national interest but in theirs as well.
[Britain has a legal (or superior) responsibility to fix the TCI, TIJ, June 19, 2008]
Where I differ from Ms Herwin and others is that I see no point in waxing indignant about the salutary neglect of the British at this point — when we’re relying on them to hold our leaders accountable for their alleged theft and to clean up their mess.
More to the point, it smacks of moral relativism (ad absurdum) to assert that Tauwhare should be standing in the same “firing line” as Misick. After all, there’s not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that Tauwhare (or any British official) ever took a bribe or embezzled a single penny of public funds.
By contrast, there’s overwhelming evidence to suggest that Misick and his ministers took millions in bribes and embezzled millions more from public funds - in a carnival of corruption that makes African kleptomaniacs seem like choir boys.
And the evidence clearly shows that they used every canard, including anti-colonial diatribes and the race card, to prevail upon a weak and out-of-his-depth Governor Tauwhare to sign off on all of their schemes.
[The Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry] makes it plain for all to see why the British government, which retains responsibility for good governance in the TCI, had no choice but to take this extraordinary step.
First and foremost, this intervention means that the British have committed to do for us what we simply could not do for ourselves; namely, to save the TCI from a state of dysfunction, destitution and dictatorship the likes of which the Commonwealth has never seen … except in Zimbabwe.
[Britain suspends TCI Constitution ... again, TIJ, March 17, 2009]
But, frankly, I fear that Ms Herwin fatally compromised her commentary, if not her reputation, by parroting Misick’s oxymoronic reasoning that we have more to lose from the British Inquiry into corruption in the TCI than from his alleged criminal enterprise masquerading as our government.
Not to mention her unwitting folly of complaining, not about what a British official said about imposing taxes upon us to compensate for the documented misdeeds of Misick and his cohorts, but about the way he said it…. We TCIslanders are not that thin-skinned Ms Herwin!
Meanwhile, to be hurling insults at and casting blame on our current governor, HE Gordon Wetherell, in this context, is so patently ignorant that I won’t even dignify this mischief with a comment.
My fellow TCIslanders, please, let us get a proper perspective on this national crisis, and stay focused on what needs to be done to repair the damage done to our country!
Showing posts with label cem kinay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cem kinay. Show all posts
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Land-seekers unwisely welcome colonial rule by UK in Turks and Caicos
I found this article written by:Jenns Citizen. It is an interesting perspective of agendas on the islands of Turks and Caicos. It was originally published August 12, 2009.
A British take over is looming over the Islands of Turks and Caicos, a self-governed British territory in the Caribbean. A small but deafeningly loud group of islanders are unwittingly in favor of a British take over believing that their own grant of Crown Land will be realised. We will call these people "land-seekers" for the purpose of this story. The question of land-seekers is: who is entitled to Crown Land? Land-seekers believe, with emphasis, that the land rights be for Belongers (those born on the islands).
The land-seekers blame businesses and resort developers for using land for which they believe that they are entitled. One land-seeker just recently claimed, "it should be that only BORN Turks & Caicos Islanders are entitled to Crown Land."
Land-seekers are also unwittingly welcoming British take over of the islands believing that they will somehow have a favourable position for the Crown Land grants. This belief of British saviourism is foolish.
Crown Land belonging to businesses and developers are proper, lest land-seekers claim otherwise with their talk of individual entitlement to "that prime land."
Firstly, it is extremely short-sighted to see the land as an individual entitlement against developers and businesses. Why? Because Crown Land means nothing unless businesses also develop on it, creating sustainability for the islands for many, many years. These businesses will benefit the citizens of Turks and Caicos and their future generations for employment and economic prosperity.
How about the land-seekers run their own businesses and make a living while creating economic growth? Do not try to deny others' ambition to contribute to Turks and Caicos' leading economic dollars, tourism. Tourism and development needs to be preserved and certainly not interrupted. Why would the land-seekers want to destroy that economic advantage by wishing for nullification of business land holdings for their own short-sited wants?
Let's explore the intention of Crown land usage from Turks and Caicos' own Crown Land Policy. According to the Crown Land Policy, commercial land development is one of the main purposes of Crown land use and sale. The Crown Land Policy is formulated to "attract investments judged best for the interest of TCI [Turks and Caicos Islands]."
Crown land is specifically intentioned for businesses and development, according to Turks and Caicos' policies.
Do the land-seekers believe that British rule will overthrow that policy of Crown Land intentions? Absolutely far fetched.
50 land-seekers wrote to the British parliament attempting to challenge the Crown Land sales for development, citing that it should be granted to Belongers, people who are born in Turks and Caicos. To which the British Parliament replied, with their published opinion that, "Crown land is a major resource on TCI, which has built its economic growth on real estate and tourism." The British will be no help to land-seekers in nullifying the Crown Land Policy of Turks and Caicos.
Land-seekers have opportunities for Crown Land without challenging business and development growth on the islands. There is an alternate remedy: apply for the land. Prime beach-front property is the heart and soul of tourism and the economy on the islands. Let's allow that to be prosperous. There are many other places in which to live and own land that will not take away from the very economy of the islands.
Turks and Caicos Islands' citizens do not wish for British rule. Turks and Caicos is trying to restore confidence in investors, create jobs and promote tourism. British rule would not benefit anyone, not even land-seekers.
A British take over is looming over the Islands of Turks and Caicos, a self-governed British territory in the Caribbean. A small but deafeningly loud group of islanders are unwittingly in favor of a British take over believing that their own grant of Crown Land will be realised. We will call these people "land-seekers" for the purpose of this story. The question of land-seekers is: who is entitled to Crown Land? Land-seekers believe, with emphasis, that the land rights be for Belongers (those born on the islands).
The land-seekers blame businesses and resort developers for using land for which they believe that they are entitled. One land-seeker just recently claimed, "it should be that only BORN Turks & Caicos Islanders are entitled to Crown Land."
Land-seekers are also unwittingly welcoming British take over of the islands believing that they will somehow have a favourable position for the Crown Land grants. This belief of British saviourism is foolish.
Crown Land belonging to businesses and developers are proper, lest land-seekers claim otherwise with their talk of individual entitlement to "that prime land."
Firstly, it is extremely short-sighted to see the land as an individual entitlement against developers and businesses. Why? Because Crown Land means nothing unless businesses also develop on it, creating sustainability for the islands for many, many years. These businesses will benefit the citizens of Turks and Caicos and their future generations for employment and economic prosperity.
How about the land-seekers run their own businesses and make a living while creating economic growth? Do not try to deny others' ambition to contribute to Turks and Caicos' leading economic dollars, tourism. Tourism and development needs to be preserved and certainly not interrupted. Why would the land-seekers want to destroy that economic advantage by wishing for nullification of business land holdings for their own short-sited wants?
Let's explore the intention of Crown land usage from Turks and Caicos' own Crown Land Policy. According to the Crown Land Policy, commercial land development is one of the main purposes of Crown land use and sale. The Crown Land Policy is formulated to "attract investments judged best for the interest of TCI [Turks and Caicos Islands]."
Crown land is specifically intentioned for businesses and development, according to Turks and Caicos' policies.
Do the land-seekers believe that British rule will overthrow that policy of Crown Land intentions? Absolutely far fetched.
50 land-seekers wrote to the British parliament attempting to challenge the Crown Land sales for development, citing that it should be granted to Belongers, people who are born in Turks and Caicos. To which the British Parliament replied, with their published opinion that, "Crown land is a major resource on TCI, which has built its economic growth on real estate and tourism." The British will be no help to land-seekers in nullifying the Crown Land Policy of Turks and Caicos.
Land-seekers have opportunities for Crown Land without challenging business and development growth on the islands. There is an alternate remedy: apply for the land. Prime beach-front property is the heart and soul of tourism and the economy on the islands. Let's allow that to be prosperous. There are many other places in which to live and own land that will not take away from the very economy of the islands.
Turks and Caicos Islands' citizens do not wish for British rule. Turks and Caicos is trying to restore confidence in investors, create jobs and promote tourism. British rule would not benefit anyone, not even land-seekers.
Media transparency and integrity. Is news reporting based on objectivity or innuendo?
By: Candace Williams original post: August 11, 2009
Reporting by opinion and innuendo. This appears to be the order of the news business these days. We've come a long way from the time of real news reporting, as I think back fondly of the Bob Woodward era. It seems that the present-day media has strayed from reporting facts, pandering to ratings and news-breaking deadlines. Where is the justice in using the news media to exploit one's own ambition or agenda?
Whether or not we want to admit it as readers of news, one has to consider the thought or lack of thought behind the words of the person who wrote it and his/her supporting news agencies' views as well.
However, we also have to consider human nature. Different people at the exact same event can yield two entirely contradictory opinions of the facts. That is just one way that the news can be inaccurate. Personal experiences in our lives and our individual perspectives will create an innate bias. For example, if two people were shot in broad daylight by a gunman, then it is a fact that there were two and not three or four victims, yet the details of the occurrence might vary from one witness to the next, though they each saw the same exact incident.
It seems that even direct quotes cannot be assumed as “fact” if a writer uses the quote out of context or sets up the quote with a contradictory statement.
Accurate and responsible research is also a part of fair journalism. I recently came across an article that, upon reading, I noticed had a fact wrong right off the bat. This is what inspired me to write this article. I decided to research deeper into this article to investigate how news journalism can be flawed. The article that I refer to is indeed a main stream news article. The shame is that after I did my research examining the article, I found it to be flawed in so many ways that I couldn't help but ask if this was pure laziness or if the writer was supporting an agenda.
I took the article line by line to test the accuracy of the statements. What I found was an alarming realization, I could either discount, disprove or impeach almost all of the statements in the article. In fact, if I were editing this article, I would have to strike 80% of it, just out of sheer integrity of journalistic professionalism.
The story caught my eye initially because it reported that the British had assumed control of the Turks and Caicos Islands. After I read it, I screeched to a stop and I asked myself, "really?" I started to look up world news and I couldn't find anything in the news about British rule in Turks and Caicos other than wide-spread rumors. But a take-over had not occurred and certainly not as of when the article was written, on August 7. I was dumbfounded as to why a reporter would report that as news. That is quite a big deal. I was offended and taken aback as a reader when I learned that this was false.
I decided to look at this article to see what else I could find. First: the headline, "Developer Michael Douglas bought property from named in TCI investigation." The first problem is that this article has generally nothing to do with Michael Douglas and it tricks readers by using a celebrity name gratuitously. Secondly, the headline makes no sense, he bought it from whom?
So I took it a step further and read the next couple of lines, "Dr. Cem Kinay has emerged as one of the central figures in the massive inquiry into political corruption in TCI [Turks and Caicos Islands]." I looked this up for accuracy. The corruption charges were against Turks and Caicos' former Premier, not Dr. Cem Kinay. Dr. Cem Kinay is a developer from Turkey who pioneered the all-inclusive vacation concept and brought his vision to Turks and Caicos. Research revealed that Cem Kinay is not "the central figure" of the investigation, he was dragged into the inquiry for his purchase of land under the former government, which he did under their laws. Furthermore, his land purchase was approved by the attorney general. I did not check into the land purchases of the other developers, but this was the case with Cem Kinay. By all accounts, it appears that Dr. Kinay has an impeccable track record as a developer, philanthropist and physician.
Then, as previously referenced, there's the claim that the corruption investigation, "led to the British assuming control of the Caribbean archipelago." This is patently false and flawed and there can be no way to explain this mistake or falsehood.
Then I read the next couple of sentences, "Mr. Douglas and his wife Catherine Zeta-Jones bought the first luxury property at Dr. Kinay's unfinished $62-million Dellis Cay development before the alarm was raised about the islands' finances." I checked on this as well, and in fact the development is doing well and Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones are still very much happy holders of real estate on the island of Dellis Cay in Turks and Caicos, lest the author of the article insinuate a post purchase "alarm" that led to a pull out of the deal. Furthermore, it is unclear how this reporter came up with "$62-million" as the cost of the project. My research revealed that his $62 million quote is very dated and far apart from the actual cost, $500 million US dollars.
Of course, I had to keep going. I read the next couple of lines, "former Turks and Caicos Premier Michael Misick, who is also implicated in the financial irregularities." Michael Misick "also implicated" and "irregularities"? This is inaccurate and misleading at best. Michael Misick was the direct target of the investigation. A few of Misick's minsters were also investigated with Misick as the core target for corruption and not merely implicated for financial irregularities.
Then I read the next few lines and came across, "Dellis Cay is a 560-acre private island that Dr. Kinay hoped to develop." This statement also failed the accuracy test. This was proved to be a false and misleading statement by the writer's use of the word "hoped". My investigation revealed that the project is almost fully developed and is happily on target to open in mid-2010. It is not readily clear to me why the word "hoped" was used when the development is proven to be almost complete.
As far as the article is concerned, in my opinion it constitutes the worst form of innuendo with its use of inflammatory labels in willful disregard of the truth. It's a shame when journalists attempt to trade on innuendo to pursue an agenda or to lazily satisfy a deadline.
Sorry, still more. Then I read that an inquiry reported, "high probability of systemic corruption or other serious dishonesty by key politicians and businessmen in TCI." I took notice of the "high probability" which in fact the inquiry report concluded affirmative corruption by Michael Misick and certain members of his cabinet, not probably but conclusively. Then the author of the article lumps-in businessmen on the island with the sentence about corruption, that was worth looking into. The "businessmen" who were purportedly questioned by the inquiry were all from Europe, not Turks and Caicos. They were there to invest in the islands and develop vacation properties. There were no laws that were broken by these businessmen, at least the one who I investigated, Dr. Kinay. Reportedly, all transactions were legally entered into under the authority of the government. Therefore, this reporting bordered offensive to me because it was an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claim that crossed a line of persuading public opinion. Furthermore, my research revealed that a judge went out of his way to order the businessmens' names removed from the inquiry report, namely Dr. Kinay.
As far as news is concerned, it is made more complicated when writers allow personal feelings and emotions to influence their news writing. Due to many personal factors, we can’t help but to be influenced in our thinking. Our different upbringings, cultural backgrounds, religion, ethical and moral education, and perhaps traumatic events in our lives may influence our judgment of facts. All of these factors can also play a roll in how we perceive events. This reminds me of a matter that occurred this year in California, wherein a main stream reporter wrote about a legal case unaware that the legal action involved a second main stream reporter. The next week, the offended second reporter wrote a completely false report in an attempt for revenge against the first reporter. The second reporter was caught red-handed. This was embarrassing to all news agencies and calls credibility into question, which is at the very heart of integrity.
But in this case, how does one reconcile subjective interpretation of events with statements that are patently false?
According to thefreedictionary.com, to be “objective” means: “Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices” (or) “Based on observable phenomena; presented factually”.
To be “subjective” is: “Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world” (or) “Particular to a given person; personal”.
When we deal with objectivity, we also have to look at the concepts of truth, fairness, balance and accuracy. These fundamental principles in the world of reporting can never stand apart from each other. When we allow our work to be subjective, biased and inaccurate then we damage not only our own credibility, but can also mislead and influence the views of whole nations, promote hatred between groups and even fuel hostility or destruction of one person's future or reputation.
Once a reporter gathers facts, it is his/her duty to report the facts in context ensuring fairness and accuracy. It cannot stand apart from fairness. The test of fairness is giving all facts involved an equal opportunity to stand alone, as I demonstrated above. There was probably not one statement that could stand alone in the article as fact in context.
Adding to the recipe of destruction, is specific media agency policies, its political alignments and objectives. It's difficult to discern agendas in reporting. When I watch MSNBC or Fox News, I am still shocked by the lack of objectivity and freedom of facts. Innuendo of other's characters is disguised as reporting. It is probably a good thing that most news watchers are savvy enough to distinguish MSNBC and Fox from real news. But is the public at large aware of violations of integrity in reporting?
“Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Russian Author.
Definitions: http://www.thefreedictionary.com
Other Reference to Truth, Fairness, Accuracy and Balance:
http://www.midoceannews.bm/siftology.midoceannews/Article/article.jsp?articleId=7d983cb30080006§ionId=60
http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/the-truth-about-idea-who-is-deborah-blair-porter-1012167.html
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3648823-the-media-objective-fair-accurate-balanced-reporting-israelgaza-case-study
Reporting by opinion and innuendo. This appears to be the order of the news business these days. We've come a long way from the time of real news reporting, as I think back fondly of the Bob Woodward era. It seems that the present-day media has strayed from reporting facts, pandering to ratings and news-breaking deadlines. Where is the justice in using the news media to exploit one's own ambition or agenda?
Whether or not we want to admit it as readers of news, one has to consider the thought or lack of thought behind the words of the person who wrote it and his/her supporting news agencies' views as well.
However, we also have to consider human nature. Different people at the exact same event can yield two entirely contradictory opinions of the facts. That is just one way that the news can be inaccurate. Personal experiences in our lives and our individual perspectives will create an innate bias. For example, if two people were shot in broad daylight by a gunman, then it is a fact that there were two and not three or four victims, yet the details of the occurrence might vary from one witness to the next, though they each saw the same exact incident.
It seems that even direct quotes cannot be assumed as “fact” if a writer uses the quote out of context or sets up the quote with a contradictory statement.
Accurate and responsible research is also a part of fair journalism. I recently came across an article that, upon reading, I noticed had a fact wrong right off the bat. This is what inspired me to write this article. I decided to research deeper into this article to investigate how news journalism can be flawed. The article that I refer to is indeed a main stream news article. The shame is that after I did my research examining the article, I found it to be flawed in so many ways that I couldn't help but ask if this was pure laziness or if the writer was supporting an agenda.
I took the article line by line to test the accuracy of the statements. What I found was an alarming realization, I could either discount, disprove or impeach almost all of the statements in the article. In fact, if I were editing this article, I would have to strike 80% of it, just out of sheer integrity of journalistic professionalism.
The story caught my eye initially because it reported that the British had assumed control of the Turks and Caicos Islands. After I read it, I screeched to a stop and I asked myself, "really?" I started to look up world news and I couldn't find anything in the news about British rule in Turks and Caicos other than wide-spread rumors. But a take-over had not occurred and certainly not as of when the article was written, on August 7. I was dumbfounded as to why a reporter would report that as news. That is quite a big deal. I was offended and taken aback as a reader when I learned that this was false.
I decided to look at this article to see what else I could find. First: the headline, "Developer Michael Douglas bought property from named in TCI investigation." The first problem is that this article has generally nothing to do with Michael Douglas and it tricks readers by using a celebrity name gratuitously. Secondly, the headline makes no sense, he bought it from whom?
So I took it a step further and read the next couple of lines, "Dr. Cem Kinay has emerged as one of the central figures in the massive inquiry into political corruption in TCI [Turks and Caicos Islands]." I looked this up for accuracy. The corruption charges were against Turks and Caicos' former Premier, not Dr. Cem Kinay. Dr. Cem Kinay is a developer from Turkey who pioneered the all-inclusive vacation concept and brought his vision to Turks and Caicos. Research revealed that Cem Kinay is not "the central figure" of the investigation, he was dragged into the inquiry for his purchase of land under the former government, which he did under their laws. Furthermore, his land purchase was approved by the attorney general. I did not check into the land purchases of the other developers, but this was the case with Cem Kinay. By all accounts, it appears that Dr. Kinay has an impeccable track record as a developer, philanthropist and physician.
Then, as previously referenced, there's the claim that the corruption investigation, "led to the British assuming control of the Caribbean archipelago." This is patently false and flawed and there can be no way to explain this mistake or falsehood.
Then I read the next couple of sentences, "Mr. Douglas and his wife Catherine Zeta-Jones bought the first luxury property at Dr. Kinay's unfinished $62-million Dellis Cay development before the alarm was raised about the islands' finances." I checked on this as well, and in fact the development is doing well and Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones are still very much happy holders of real estate on the island of Dellis Cay in Turks and Caicos, lest the author of the article insinuate a post purchase "alarm" that led to a pull out of the deal. Furthermore, it is unclear how this reporter came up with "$62-million" as the cost of the project. My research revealed that his $62 million quote is very dated and far apart from the actual cost, $500 million US dollars.
Of course, I had to keep going. I read the next couple of lines, "former Turks and Caicos Premier Michael Misick, who is also implicated in the financial irregularities." Michael Misick "also implicated" and "irregularities"? This is inaccurate and misleading at best. Michael Misick was the direct target of the investigation. A few of Misick's minsters were also investigated with Misick as the core target for corruption and not merely implicated for financial irregularities.
Then I read the next few lines and came across, "Dellis Cay is a 560-acre private island that Dr. Kinay hoped to develop." This statement also failed the accuracy test. This was proved to be a false and misleading statement by the writer's use of the word "hoped". My investigation revealed that the project is almost fully developed and is happily on target to open in mid-2010. It is not readily clear to me why the word "hoped" was used when the development is proven to be almost complete.
As far as the article is concerned, in my opinion it constitutes the worst form of innuendo with its use of inflammatory labels in willful disregard of the truth. It's a shame when journalists attempt to trade on innuendo to pursue an agenda or to lazily satisfy a deadline.
Sorry, still more. Then I read that an inquiry reported, "high probability of systemic corruption or other serious dishonesty by key politicians and businessmen in TCI." I took notice of the "high probability" which in fact the inquiry report concluded affirmative corruption by Michael Misick and certain members of his cabinet, not probably but conclusively. Then the author of the article lumps-in businessmen on the island with the sentence about corruption, that was worth looking into. The "businessmen" who were purportedly questioned by the inquiry were all from Europe, not Turks and Caicos. They were there to invest in the islands and develop vacation properties. There were no laws that were broken by these businessmen, at least the one who I investigated, Dr. Kinay. Reportedly, all transactions were legally entered into under the authority of the government. Therefore, this reporting bordered offensive to me because it was an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claim that crossed a line of persuading public opinion. Furthermore, my research revealed that a judge went out of his way to order the businessmens' names removed from the inquiry report, namely Dr. Kinay.
As far as news is concerned, it is made more complicated when writers allow personal feelings and emotions to influence their news writing. Due to many personal factors, we can’t help but to be influenced in our thinking. Our different upbringings, cultural backgrounds, religion, ethical and moral education, and perhaps traumatic events in our lives may influence our judgment of facts. All of these factors can also play a roll in how we perceive events. This reminds me of a matter that occurred this year in California, wherein a main stream reporter wrote about a legal case unaware that the legal action involved a second main stream reporter. The next week, the offended second reporter wrote a completely false report in an attempt for revenge against the first reporter. The second reporter was caught red-handed. This was embarrassing to all news agencies and calls credibility into question, which is at the very heart of integrity.
But in this case, how does one reconcile subjective interpretation of events with statements that are patently false?
According to thefreedictionary.com, to be “objective” means: “Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices” (or) “Based on observable phenomena; presented factually”.
To be “subjective” is: “Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world” (or) “Particular to a given person; personal”.
When we deal with objectivity, we also have to look at the concepts of truth, fairness, balance and accuracy. These fundamental principles in the world of reporting can never stand apart from each other. When we allow our work to be subjective, biased and inaccurate then we damage not only our own credibility, but can also mislead and influence the views of whole nations, promote hatred between groups and even fuel hostility or destruction of one person's future or reputation.
Once a reporter gathers facts, it is his/her duty to report the facts in context ensuring fairness and accuracy. It cannot stand apart from fairness. The test of fairness is giving all facts involved an equal opportunity to stand alone, as I demonstrated above. There was probably not one statement that could stand alone in the article as fact in context.
Adding to the recipe of destruction, is specific media agency policies, its political alignments and objectives. It's difficult to discern agendas in reporting. When I watch MSNBC or Fox News, I am still shocked by the lack of objectivity and freedom of facts. Innuendo of other's characters is disguised as reporting. It is probably a good thing that most news watchers are savvy enough to distinguish MSNBC and Fox from real news. But is the public at large aware of violations of integrity in reporting?
“Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Russian Author.
Definitions: http://www.thefreedictionary.com
Other Reference to Truth, Fairness, Accuracy and Balance:
http://www.midoceannews.bm/siftology.midoceannews/Article/article.jsp?articleId=7d983cb30080006§ionId=60
http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/the-truth-about-idea-who-is-deborah-blair-porter-1012167.html
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3648823-the-media-objective-fair-accurate-balanced-reporting-israelgaza-case-study
Saturday, August 1, 2009
http://www.bvinews.com/index.php/all_news/caribbean/3285.html
GRAND TURK, Turks and Caicos Islands; Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 –
“On 18 June 2009 my attorney made the following statement on my behalf to the Chief Justice – Until the final determination of any appeal to the Court of Appeal (when the question shall be reviewed) the Governor will not publish any part of the final Report of the Commission of Inquiry that contains any reference adverse to Cem Kinay, Turks Development LP, The Star Lions Limited, or to Mario Hoffmann.
In a letter dated 2 July 2009 written on my behalf to attorneys acting for Varet Jak Civre the Honourable Attorney General said –I confirm, that there will not be publication by the Governor of any part of the final Report of the Commission of Inquiry that contains any reference adverse to your client before final determination of the Court of Appeal in civil appeal no. 8/09 R v. Turks and Caicos Islands Commission of Inquiry Ex Parte Kinay et al…At the time that those statements were made and at all times thereafter I fully intended to comply with what had been said, and fully intended to ensure that those who acted on my behalf would comply with what had been said.
It is now common knowledge that the redacted version of the report that was placed on the Commission’s website on Saturday 18 July 2009 was not sufficiently protected so that those with sufficient technical knowledge were able to remove the redactions and thus reveal the full text of the report. The statements made on my behalf to the Chief Justice and to Mr Civre’s attorneys have therefore not been complied with.I have caused an investigation to be made so as to establish what went wrong. The purpose of this statement is to provide the results of that investigation. But before giving them I wish to apologise unreservedly to the court for what has happened.
I shall contact Dr Kinay, Mr Hoffmann and Mr Civre privately to make similar apologies to each of them. My intention at all times was to comply with the statements that I made. Both I and those acting on my behalf believed that the redacted version of the report that was sent to the Commission to be uploaded onto its website was sufficiently protected so that redacted portions of the report could not be read.
I am very sorry that that was not the case.As would be expected, I sought advice before deciding what passages should be redacted from the report that it was intended to publish pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal proceedings. Acting on that advice a draft of the redacted version of the report was prepared. At that stage the document was being worked on in Word format. It was recognised that if the redactions were to remain secure we would not be able to publish the redacted version in a Word format but that some form of protection, such as converting the document to pdf format, would be required.A Word document containing the draft of the redacted version of the report was converted into pdf format.
The converted pdf document was then reviewed to confirm that the redactions originally made in the Word document remained in place. To be certain that it would be safe for the redacted report to be published in pdf format, it was suggested by those advising on redactions that confirmation of the position be sought from IT support.The instruction was to determine whether this format [that is, the pdf format] is secure (i.e. people won’t be able to remove the redactions and see the text underneath). Acting on that instruction, a member of staff spoke to the IT support and was informed that there was no experience of security issues when publishing in pdf format, and that the pdf format was widely used by UK government departments generally for the publication of documents.
Confirmation that pdf documents were secure was then relayed back to those preparing the redacted text on my behalf.We therefore believed that publication in pdf format would be secure and would ensure compliance with the statements that had been made on my behalf.Thereafter the final redacted version of the report was converted into a pdf document and that pdf was then sent to the Commission for publication on its website. The Commission instructed its IT consultant to place the redacted report in pdf format on its website. That was done.
At the time that the redacted report was published on the Commission’s website we all believed that it was secure and that the redactions could not be uncovered. As soon as we were alerted to the true position the Honourable Attorney General initiated steps to have the redacted report removed from the website. It was removed as soon as was possible.It was always my intention that the spirit and letter of the statements that were made on my behalf should be honoured in full.
We believed that we had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that that was the case. I am very sorry that that was not achieved and repeat my apology to the court. As I have said, I shall write separately to Dr Kinay, Mr Hoffmann and Mr Civre.”Gordon WetherellWaterlooGrand Turk
END
GRAND TURK, Turks and Caicos Islands; Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 –
“On 18 June 2009 my attorney made the following statement on my behalf to the Chief Justice – Until the final determination of any appeal to the Court of Appeal (when the question shall be reviewed) the Governor will not publish any part of the final Report of the Commission of Inquiry that contains any reference adverse to Cem Kinay, Turks Development LP, The Star Lions Limited, or to Mario Hoffmann.
In a letter dated 2 July 2009 written on my behalf to attorneys acting for Varet Jak Civre the Honourable Attorney General said –I confirm, that there will not be publication by the Governor of any part of the final Report of the Commission of Inquiry that contains any reference adverse to your client before final determination of the Court of Appeal in civil appeal no. 8/09 R v. Turks and Caicos Islands Commission of Inquiry Ex Parte Kinay et al…At the time that those statements were made and at all times thereafter I fully intended to comply with what had been said, and fully intended to ensure that those who acted on my behalf would comply with what had been said.
It is now common knowledge that the redacted version of the report that was placed on the Commission’s website on Saturday 18 July 2009 was not sufficiently protected so that those with sufficient technical knowledge were able to remove the redactions and thus reveal the full text of the report. The statements made on my behalf to the Chief Justice and to Mr Civre’s attorneys have therefore not been complied with.I have caused an investigation to be made so as to establish what went wrong. The purpose of this statement is to provide the results of that investigation. But before giving them I wish to apologise unreservedly to the court for what has happened.
I shall contact Dr Kinay, Mr Hoffmann and Mr Civre privately to make similar apologies to each of them. My intention at all times was to comply with the statements that I made. Both I and those acting on my behalf believed that the redacted version of the report that was sent to the Commission to be uploaded onto its website was sufficiently protected so that redacted portions of the report could not be read.
I am very sorry that that was not the case.As would be expected, I sought advice before deciding what passages should be redacted from the report that it was intended to publish pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal proceedings. Acting on that advice a draft of the redacted version of the report was prepared. At that stage the document was being worked on in Word format. It was recognised that if the redactions were to remain secure we would not be able to publish the redacted version in a Word format but that some form of protection, such as converting the document to pdf format, would be required.A Word document containing the draft of the redacted version of the report was converted into pdf format.
The converted pdf document was then reviewed to confirm that the redactions originally made in the Word document remained in place. To be certain that it would be safe for the redacted report to be published in pdf format, it was suggested by those advising on redactions that confirmation of the position be sought from IT support.The instruction was to determine whether this format [that is, the pdf format] is secure (i.e. people won’t be able to remove the redactions and see the text underneath). Acting on that instruction, a member of staff spoke to the IT support and was informed that there was no experience of security issues when publishing in pdf format, and that the pdf format was widely used by UK government departments generally for the publication of documents.
Confirmation that pdf documents were secure was then relayed back to those preparing the redacted text on my behalf.We therefore believed that publication in pdf format would be secure and would ensure compliance with the statements that had been made on my behalf.Thereafter the final redacted version of the report was converted into a pdf document and that pdf was then sent to the Commission for publication on its website. The Commission instructed its IT consultant to place the redacted report in pdf format on its website. That was done.
At the time that the redacted report was published on the Commission’s website we all believed that it was secure and that the redactions could not be uncovered. As soon as we were alerted to the true position the Honourable Attorney General initiated steps to have the redacted report removed from the website. It was removed as soon as was possible.It was always my intention that the spirit and letter of the statements that were made on my behalf should be honoured in full.
We believed that we had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that that was the case. I am very sorry that that was not achieved and repeat my apology to the court. As I have said, I shall write separately to Dr Kinay, Mr Hoffmann and Mr Civre.”Gordon WetherellWaterlooGrand Turk
END
Governor of Turks and Caicos apologizes to land developers for being named in Michael Misick corruption report
August 1, 2009 published BY CMC
Originally published: July 23, 2009 02:11:00 PM
http://www.suntci.com/index.php?p=story&id=264
PROVIDENCIALES, Turks and Caicos Islands, CMC - Shrinking revenues have forced the government of this British Overseas Territory to terminate the services of political appointees, Premier Galmore Williams has announced.
Williams said Thursday that the decision taken on the advice of the Ministry of Finance will result in the discontinuation of the services of all political appointees, effective September 30, 2009.He said the move has become necessary to “better enable government to work within the constraints of its ever shrinking revenue intake which has gone from an average of approximately USD$18 million per month last year to approximately some USD$9 million per month this year”.Williams said regrets having to take such action, having wrestled long and hard with the issue. However, he expected the move to provide the government with room to implement measures to stimulate the economy, which has been slowing in recent months.“Coupled with the other measures that we have put in place and others yet to be implemented, this course of action will assure us of the opportunity to turn around our economy in the quickest possible time, while lessening the impact that the current worldwide recession will otherwise have on our wider community,” he said.The Premier also said efforts were being made to ensure that as many of the affected individuals as possible are given other job opportunities before the end of September.The Turks and Caicos government faces an uncertain future, with the British government preparing to suspend the territory’s constitution and implement direct rule after a Commission of Inquiry probing widespread allegations of corruption under the watch of former Premier Michael Misick said it had found "clear signs of political amorality and immaturity and of general administrative incompetence".
http://www.suntci.com/index.php?p=story&id=264
Originally published: July 23, 2009 02:11:00 PM
http://www.suntci.com/index.php?p=story&id=264
PROVIDENCIALES, Turks and Caicos Islands, CMC - Shrinking revenues have forced the government of this British Overseas Territory to terminate the services of political appointees, Premier Galmore Williams has announced.
Williams said Thursday that the decision taken on the advice of the Ministry of Finance will result in the discontinuation of the services of all political appointees, effective September 30, 2009.He said the move has become necessary to “better enable government to work within the constraints of its ever shrinking revenue intake which has gone from an average of approximately USD$18 million per month last year to approximately some USD$9 million per month this year”.Williams said regrets having to take such action, having wrestled long and hard with the issue. However, he expected the move to provide the government with room to implement measures to stimulate the economy, which has been slowing in recent months.“Coupled with the other measures that we have put in place and others yet to be implemented, this course of action will assure us of the opportunity to turn around our economy in the quickest possible time, while lessening the impact that the current worldwide recession will otherwise have on our wider community,” he said.The Premier also said efforts were being made to ensure that as many of the affected individuals as possible are given other job opportunities before the end of September.The Turks and Caicos government faces an uncertain future, with the British government preparing to suspend the territory’s constitution and implement direct rule after a Commission of Inquiry probing widespread allegations of corruption under the watch of former Premier Michael Misick said it had found "clear signs of political amorality and immaturity and of general administrative incompetence".
http://www.suntci.com/index.php?p=story&id=264
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)