Petulant, petty and vindictive Fred Mitchell in the House of Assembly on the Wikileaks publication of confidential US embassy cables on Bahamian political affairs

Fred Mitchell and journalistic ethics

tribune242 editorial



IN THE House of Assembly on Tuesday Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell held forth as though he were an authority on journalistic ethics.

At one time in his life he fancied himself as a journalist. Those of us properly trained in the profession considered him a scribbler of propaganda. We never took him seriously.

Obviously upset by the Wikileaks publication of confidential US embassy cables on Bahamian political affairs -- especially those pertaining to himself -- Mr Mitchell decided to take out his venom against the reporter who gave an accurate, objective report that quoted -- but did not interpret -- the content of those cables.

In a 2005 cable former US Ambassador John Rood saw "two Fred Mitchell's" - the polite and polished public Mitchell and the more private, but more revealing Mitchell. We have often seen a third side -- petulant, petty and vindictive -- and this is the side that Fred Mitchell exposed in the House on Tuesday.

Upset by the reports, he turned his venom on the Guardian reporter.

"I always envied my colleague, the Member for North Andros, that former lady friend of his who shall remain nameless who works at the Guardian and wrote that whole section about me," he told the House. "'That gal look good!"

"My only point is that journalism, the kind that The Nassau Guardian, The Tribune and The Bahamas Journal are to practice carried with it certain ethical standards and it is unethical to write a story about one subject of which you had a close personal relationship as if you are a disinterested party. It can be seen as malicious. But neither she nor her employers seem to get the point," he said.

What rubbish is the man talking?

Here he is complaining about an article that the reporter wrote about him. Is he referring to that article and the subject of that article when he complains that it was unethical of the reporter to write on a subject of which she had a close personal relationship as if she were a disinterested party? Knowing Fred Mitchell we are satisfied that she had no personal relationship with him. So who is the subject to whom he refers and how is that "subject" relevant to the article of which he complains?

The fact that this reporter can write on a subject in which Mr Mitchell claims she has a personal interest as though she were disinterested shows that she is a good objective reporter, who does not let personal relationships cloud her judgment. This is more than can be said about the writing of Mr Mitchell on his Bahamas uncensored website about which Ambassador Rood had reason to complain to then prime minister Christie. Mr Rood was concerned about what he perceived as Mr Mitchell's anti-American viewpoints.

According to Mr Mitchell there is public "fascination and revulsion" at the disclosures. Revulsion that public officials "would be so open and callous" with information they share with "American diplomats." He condemned these Bahamians for "spilling their guts" to junior diplomats. He seems to forget that the assessment on himself of which he complains was made by the Ambassador himself -- no junior diplomat.

But, talking about "gut spilling," according to the diplomatic cables, we have Mr Mitchell expressing his frustrations with the level of efficiency of the Christie cabinet.

In commenting on the practices of restrictions on cabinet debates in Commonwealth countries, Mr Mitchell "intimated, the Christie cabinet of the Bahamas operates much less efficiently since any minister can intervene and express a view on any issue before the government."

At a meeting with Ambassador Rood in March 2007, Mr Mitchell "expressed his frustration at the indecision in his own government stemming from the pending elections.

"Mitchell cited the delay in signing the airport management contract and the delay in moving ahead with discussions on the Flight Information Region as two examples," the cable said.

"He noted that if the elections had been called in November and held in December, the government would either be out of power already or be finished with the elections and able to govern effectively."

Now who is gut spilling? Here Mr Mitchell is caught "spilling his guts" on the very issue that today has many Bahamians concerned -- the indecision of the Christie administration.

This obviously is going to be an issue in this election. In May, 2007 Bahamians cut this indecision short by dismissing the Christie government at the polls. It would be surprising if -- despite what Mr Mitchell now says -- they would vote in 2012 for a repeat performance.

June 02, 2011

tribune242 editorial