HOW THE JEP DELIBERATELY SEEK TO MANIPULATE OPINION

Faked letters attacking Progressive politicians fine. Genuine letters from the public which don't share the editor's view are... not

Though I will have a new post up in the next day or two in the meantime I reproduce below, with the kind permission of the member of the public in question, a letter sent to the editor of the Jersey Evening Post in the week following our original court case back in April 2012. Just as important, of course, is the curt and, it has to be said, arrogantly pathetic reply from Mr Chris Bright.

 

Having stumbled upon this again the other day I think it is very telling with regard to the way the 'newspaper' attempts to mislead its ever-dwindling readership to maintain the favoured Establishment view and thus help keep the 'right' sort of people in office.  All whilst claiming, of course, that Pravda is a fair minded and responsible journal treating all views and perspectives equally and without any prejudice.

 

Everything in the letter was as per the JEP's publication policy

 

As is wholly apparent the letter from Mr Whitworth - who actually stood against me in the 2008 election and thus can hardly be described as a friend displaying bias - is both polite, concise and entirely in line with the 'newspaper's' claimed policy for publication. Where it falls down, of course, is that Mr Whitworth expresses the view held by the vast majority and clearly Mr Bright cannot have that type of thing within his pages!

 

This is a fact made all the more disturbing, of course, given the hard reality that under Bright's stewardship of the JEP he has regularly been proven to quite happily print wholly fabricated letters from non-exitent people attacking politicians who dare challenge the Establishment line so beloved of the 'newspaper'.

 

Faked letters whose sprurious content we have quickly and easily demonstrated to be fabricated at that by a quick and simple visit - even though Bright and his minions have repeatedly claimed to me and others that the authenticity of all letters to be published are first throughly checked out by the JEP's staff. Opinion manipulation, it has to be said, of the most despicable and unprofessional kind; and behaviour hardly appropriate to a claimed 'quality' newspaper.

 

The 'Jersey Way' in all it's sordid glory

 

Of course, as we found out the hard way just like so many others -in a Jersey court to win a case you can't simply rely upon being right as with respectable jurisdictions. You just have to be on the right 'team'. 

 

A light-hearted Christmas cartoon? No. As the man behind it, Broadland's Mr Roger Trower was forced to concede in court; far from a result of his being 'pleased' Jersey now had a 'husband and wife team' in the States: 'Yes...' the cartoon was 'serious political comment at the end of the day.' And it was also a pack of lies which painted a wholly false picture of the political platform upon which we had stood.

 

No wonder an ever-growing number of local people are heading out on the long but necessary trek to Strasbourg.

 

 

The letter from Mr Chris Whitworth

 

 

12^th April 2012

 

Dear Sir, 

After reading the recent Andy Sibcy libel action report regarding both Deputies Trevor and Shona Pitman against estate agency Broadlands 2008 Christmas advert published in the JEP, I began my own small survey. 

Commissioner Sir Charles Gray was responsible for advising the two Jurats Le Breton & Milner on whether this advertising feature was in fact defamatory. They were advised to consider it through the eyes of the ordinary or reasonable reader. 

Interestingly, my survey involved asking some of the aforementioned readers for their opinions and so far everyone has responded that it was all about the money they can earn as states members. Asked about the quote ‘4 x the salary darling’ and not one person associated this with the mortgage multiplier used by lenders to work out how much a couple can borrow – even when ‘joint’ was added to the quote. 

Now, I cannot be totally sure that the people I asked are not extraordinary or unreasonable readers and totally agree that my poll has no credible value at all, but it does question whether the deputies ever had a chance in this case. 

I, as I imagine all parties involved in this disagreement, would defend the right to freedom of speech; however, when so many people are misinterpreting the intention of this advert, then obviously something has gone very wrong. 

I may be mistaken, but I cannot recall any article or relevance with a mortgage relating to these deputies in 2008. 

As for the picture in question, the expressions on the deputies’ faces along with the fact that the rosette is surrounded with pound notes, is very misleading at the very least. 

Perhaps, in future any such material should be produced in such a way that it is clearly understood by all readers and not just those with knowledge of mathematical multipliers. 

Yours Faithfully

 

Chris Whitworth 

 

JEP Editor Chris Bright's reply

                                                                                                                                                19 April, 2012

Dear Mr Whitworth, 

I write in reply to your letter of 12 April, which I have decided not to publish because it effectively says little more than that, despite your not having been present in court, you disagree with the verdict it reached. With due respect, although you are entitled to your personal opinion on the subject, that is of little interest to the general public. 

If you would care to submit a letter commenting on any related issues in a more general way, I would be happy to consider its publication. 

Yours sincerely, 

CHRIS BRIGHT

EDITOR