Dear BP,
Bahamians and Bahamian residents look forward to the budget debates. The government presents its budget for the upcoming year, and the opposition pokes credible holes in it by exposing misplaced digits, contradictions and other alleged shortcomings. We look forward to the cuts and thrusts of a rational debate, based on the opposition’s thorough reading and understanding of the subject matter. Alas, from the current debate, one can assume that the opposition’s strategy is not to debate the budget but to smear Madam Speaker and disrupt the proceedings of the house.
The current debate has set new lows for the opposition. Nothing that they railed about had anything to do with the subject, just reckless personal attacks on sitting MPs and gratuitous statements on a US case over which the Bahamas Judiciary has no control. One glaring omission by the opposition is its deafening silence on a luxury yacht owned by a ratified FNM candidate, arrested whilst allegedly transporting 200 Kilograms of cocaine to the United States.
With all the opposition Klang and Wut, all their maniacal rantings, and the many sensational and misleading statements and the press parroting the opposition attacks, lead a reasonable observer to conclude that the media is engaging in naked Client Journalism. Client journalism refers to journalists who serve the interests of political or commercial patrons—their “clients”—instead of acting independently. They may repeat talking points, suppress damaging information, or frame stories to benefit those in power.
Peter Oborne describes such journalists as people who “decorate power” rather than challenge it, legitimising political actors instead of holding them accountable.
Client journalism distorts the political process by aligning journalists with powerful actors rather than the public, weakening accountability, reshaping public opinion through selective narratives, and enabling political manipulation. The effects are structural, cultural, and democratic. Client journalism turns the press from a watchdog into an instrument of political or elite interests, undermining democratic scrutiny and reshaping how citizens perceive political reality.
When journalists act as extensions of political elites, they stop scrutinising decisions, policies, and misconduct. They blindly assert their clients’ talking points and ignore any positive narrative from the political grouping their clients oppose. Research on Israeli media shows that journalists often serve the interests of their employers and elite partners rather than the public. The practice of client journalism feeds on access. Access is the most powerful tool. Political actors selectively grant:
- Exclusive interviews
- Early leaks
- Insider briefings
- Off‑the‑record guidance and
- Free hospitality as a reward
Journalists who play along get the “inside track.” Those who dare to portray any PLP success get frozen out. What makes this mindset astounding is that the media fights tooth and nail against a popular government with a massive mandate, so what are they being promised? What force is driving many of them to turn what is left of their credibility and careers into a dumpster fire? That force goes back to the Nazi propaganda model and perhaps predates it. It’s called Institution Capture.
Sometimes the journalist doesn’t need to be cultivated individually—the institution is already captured.
Political actors influence:
- Media owners
- Board members
- Senior editors
These leaders then pressure journalists to:
- Run certain stories
- Kill others
- Frame narratives in a particular way
- Not run any article complementary to the PLP
The journalist becomes a client by necessity, not choice. This is a hypocritical and dangerous state of affairs. Journalists demand faultless behaviour from politicians, especially the PLP, while engaging in dishonest, biased journalism virtually daily. If you are waiting for any of the dailies to print anything positive about a PLP government, don’t waste your time. They will never do it; their institutions have been bought and paid for by powers they can’t refuse.
Because of this, they will disseminate the political rantings of unhinged individuals and, through repetition, seek to normalise intemperate, disrespectful, cretinous and abnormal behaviour in our sacred Parliament. So, what’s to be done? Personally, I will not provide fuel to newspapers that have been trying to undermine my political party for generations. I would print all official and public notices on a government-owned and operated platform and watch them collapse. If I were the Speaker of the House, I would not recognise any of the FNM members until they apologise for their disgraceful behaviour. If it takes five years, then so be it!
Sincerely,
Michael J. Brown
