I’ve just finished reading another one of the guardians “Wiki-Leak” articles. Like most of the others they do not paint the current opposition in the most favorable light.
This particular article discusses the strange relationship between Bishop Neil Ellis and Former Prime Minister Perry Christie. In my opinion the article shows Perry Christie in an extremely unfavorable light. As I was reading, I took note of my feelings and felt my opinion of Mr. Christie being influenced by the article.
While I’m not a PLP supporter, I personally feel that the US involvement in Bahamian Politics was inappropriate. I also feel that the Guardians articles seem slanted.
It is obvious to me that these article have the ability to greatly influence the 2012 elections. For example, a FNM supporter or swing voter not inclined to vote for the FNM and who may have been considering voting for the PLP, could easily read those article and choose not to.
Is that the purpose?
Considering the impact of these articles on our country it is not enough in my opinion for the Guardian to provide a few quotes surrounded by a reporter’s opinion to the Bahamian people as fact.
The articles need more depth, instead of a few quotes, provide maybe a few paragraphs, enough so that we determine relevance. The Guardian needs to be transparent and ensure that they are not being used as a tool in political games.
What is your opinion, do you think these articles expose the truth or are they being used for political purposes?