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.
Showing posts with label dellis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dellis. Show all posts
Saturday, August 15, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)