Mr Galanis wrote: “On Monday, November 13th, The Tribune’s journalists have done their very best once more to mislead and misinform the Bahamian public.” He asks how a reporter, “supposedly part of the cadre of journalists that are being so well-trained by the eminent Mr Marquis” can “attempt to mislead his readers so blatantly by headlining a story ‘international media.’”

In what is becoming a recurrent theme in his public comments on journalism, Mr Galanis seems to have confused his terms and missed the point entirely. There are, in fact, a number of curious aspects to Mr Galanis’ letter – leaving aside the many grammatical oddities, two examples of which are offered in the paragraph above.

Mr Galanis’ complaint seems to be that the stories published by international media organisations referring to Anna Nicole Smith as a political handicap for his party had their origins in the work of a few local stringers. He says: “The fact that the story is running in, as the article says, ‘Canada, Europe, Australia, China and the US’, does not mean that there are Canadian, European, Australian, Chinese and American journalists camped out here, each writing stories that reflect negatively on our nation and our government.”

The short answer to this is: of course this is not what it means.

Nowhere in my article is it claimed or even suggested that the stories were the work of foreign journalists. Anyone acquainted with the modus operandi of international media organisations would wonder where the senator got such an idea.

In yet another of his interesting grammatical constructions, Mr Galanis asserts: “The truth is, if this reporter were to be honest, that these stories he refers to are actually written by local reporters who are ‘stringers’ for these news organisations, like Reuters and the Associated Press.”

Absolutely correct . . . and? One struggles to see his point. The fact of the matter is that the story WAS published  – in Canada, Europe, Australia, the US and China.

Surely even someone as blinded by partisan fervor as Mr Galanis can appreciate that what matters is not who wrote a story that portrays the Bahamas in a negative light, but how many people read it internationally.

Is he suggesting that the readership of more than 100 news houses from Washington to Beijing did NOT read the story? Is he saying that a news story read by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of potential tourists and investors doesn’t matter unless it is written by a journalist born in the country where it is published, who travelled to the Bahamas in order to report back? In that case, a good portion of all modern journalism may as well be disregarded.

The senator seems to have become entangled in misconceptions about the meaning of the term “international media”, assuming for some reason that it applies to the individual writing the news, rather than the body which publishes it. This would be easily remedied were Mr Galanis to look up “international” and “media” in any dictionary.

But perhaps the best way for him to avoid becoming confused in the future is not to speak about journalism, a subject of which he clearly has little understanding. For his information, news organisations that subscribe to international wires like the Associated Press and Reuters select only a few from a multitude of stories every day and hold their stringers to the most rigorous standards of accountability. Under these circumstances, would one not consider it quite significant that so many news organisations chose to publish a story embarrassing the PLP over thousands of other options sent in from around the world that day.

Mr Galanis’ argument is irrelevant in any case. Had his attention span held to the end of my article, he would have found it clearly explained that all the stories about Anna Nicole Smith I referred to originated in a single Associated Press article.

However there is another, much more troubling sentiment expressed in his closing statements. Mr Galanis asks: “Why are these ‘stringers’ or reporters in the employ of foreign news agencies so determined to undermine the place they call home and attempt to destroy what so many have worked so hard to build up?”

The answer, of course, is that the truth cannot undermine or destroy anything worth preserving. If the stringer’s story is not the truth, I invite Mr Galanis to outline the positive version of the Anna Nicole Smith debacle for the public.

Journalists understand that a democratic society can only endure if those in power are constantly subjected to the most intense scrutiny and made to earn any respect they enjoy.

But it seems Mr Galanis believes that rather than tell the truth, our job is to erect a glossy veneer around our national image, regardless of the reality of its contents. I would refer him to any textbook definition of journalism or indeed parliamentary democracy to ascertain which of us is correct.

The senator goes on to question whether The Tribune has “the journalistic integrity they profess to possess”.

I do not expect any politician to appreciate the truism that there is no integrity without honesty. And true to the model, the senator evidently thinks “the best interests of the Bahamian people” means putting a positive spin on things regardless of the facts. But if the senator were to overcome his apparent aversion to reference books, he might learn that behaving with integrity is the antithesis of blindly catering to interests, and that ultimately, the best service a journalist can render his country is to “let justice be done, though the heavens fall” as the Romans used to say.

Of late, Tribune journalists who have spoken out against corruption or hypocrisy have been accused of acting as conduits for the opinions of our superiors. Lest the senator be tempted to make the same error, I invite him to contact me personally to judge for himself the origin of the opinions expressed above.
PACO NUNEZ
Tribune News Editor
Nassau,
December 4, 2006