I don't buy the paper as a rule, in fact I don't buy any papers.
Anyhow I think what you are advocating is Blackmail to a certain extent. It's very hard for a local paper to write in a neutral manner and not appear to take one side or another. If it did we would then be claiming that the government is being run by media moguls as happens in the UK. I guess with the JEP it's history doesn't help it as Walker was it's majority shareholder until quite recently and is still perceived to have some strong influences in its editorial content.
However I also note that they gave a two page spread to Stuart Syvret last night and very few have commented on that here. I guess that there are people in Jersey society this morning saying that by giving Syvret a two page platform the JEP is anti establishment. Basically damned if they do damned if they don't.
Making people aware of the facts, and then suggesting they exercise their rights as consumers on the basis of those facts, isn't blackmail. It's creating informed choice.
Of course there's going to be an element of bias in any newspaper. But what we have seen with the JEP this week has been
very disturbing. We're not just talking about a gentle case of bias. Take the Newsnight transcript for example. They printed an edited version, then gave Frank Walker space to comment and complain - with the edited version serving to back up his claim of injustice. However, they removed the one section of the interview which would have rendered his angle of complaint worthless and proven Paxman's attack to be completely justified.
Also, as I've previously mentioned elsewhere, the JEP were quick to make an issue out of Paxman misquoting Walker, but completely failed to point out that the actual phrase Walker used was equally as damaging and inappropriate as the misquote.
When a newspaper starts behaving like that, some might say that things start to look rather unethical, and the consumer has a right - nay, a
duty - to protest.... especially when a newspaper acting in that fashion has a monopoly.
I don't understand why you think a newspaper run by media moguls would automatically be one that had any control over our government. And even if they did, on a small island like this they wouldn't last for long once the people realised, because ultimately the people can control the newspaper at any time, by withdrawing their financial support. In comparison, aside from one voting day every few years, the people have no such immediate element of control over politicians.
I think you're understating the size of the problem somewhat when you mention it doesn't help that Walker was a major shareholder of the paper. For over 30 years he controlled the island's newspaper monopoly. For 15 of those he was a serving politician. That is such an
extreme conflict of interest, that it shouldn't have been allowed. Can you imagine a similar situation in any other democracy? It just doesn't happen. There'd be a national outcry if it turned out tomorrow that one of Gordon Brown's cabinet controlled every single newspaper in the UK.
The Syvret spread? I actually don't think it's worthy of
any praise on the part of the JEP. Why not? Because throughout the week that same paper have been spinning articles and editorials to make Syvret look like a problem and Walker look like a victim. It's become such a visibly unbalanced state of affairs that it's probably safe to say they had no choice but to offer this interview, to sustain some image of being an unbiased organ.
The JEP deserve no sympathy, the seeds of any public discontent have been sown entirely by the paper's own hand.
