John Marquis says British Press Gazette Erred in Police Shooting Story

2
1559

tribune-let-2-copy.jpg

Click Here to read Marquis letter: tribune-let-1.jpg

Nassau, Bahamas – The managing editor of the Tribune, John Marquis responded to writers in The Bahamas on a global misprint by the Press Gazette, a British media magazine. Marquis response came after writers pointed to an article online [http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/2008/01jan/080103nass.shtml] that initially told a different story from what was printed in The Bahamas. The misinformation was a result of an interview with the British magazine given by John Marquis on the killing of a police officer just in the backyard of the daily.

Marquis was quoted in his letter to the editor in the Tribune on January 10th stating, “I state categorically that I did not tell Press Gazette, the British media magazine that my colleague, Neil Hartnell, and I were in The Tribune’s office during last week’s shoot-out, when a young police was tragically killed.”

The British magazine had earlier reported that Marquis had informed them that both editors witnessed thee ordeal as it unfolded in the early morning hours.

The retraction of John’s comments however, come only after writers in the Bahamas quoted the story in the Tribune that told a different story about the incident given by Marquis to the British magazine.

When the Tribune writer wrote the story, it noted that only a security guard and a production worker was still on the property.

What is clear in all this is the fact that misprints are common in the Tribune, and with that consistency, John Marquis has now caused a global magazine to do the same.

The callous editorial practises of the Tribune recently caused the Speaker of the House to call for a retraction of a headline in November. The headline lied when it read that Perry Christie was being paid the same as then leader of the opposition Hubert Ingraham. Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham agreed that the headline was untrue and the Speaker of the House Alvin Smith called for a retraction. The facts surrounding the misprint concluded that;

• The Tribune never heard Hubert Ingraham say Perry Christie is being paid the same as he was.

• The Tribune did not have a reporter in the House when the Prime Minister Ingraham made his comments.

• The Tribune did never asked The Prime Minister to confirm he did say.

• Neither did they ask Leader of the Opposition Perry Christie if what Mr Ingraham said was true. The Tribune also never questioned the Treasury department to confirm if payment to Mr Christie as discussed in the House by Mr Ingraham was indeed true.

They did no real news gathering on the facts, which resulted in a misrepresentation of the truth in the November 14th edition. Yet the Tribune would want to be considered a reputable newspaper. What is worse, the editorial column of the Tribune is calling for laws to regulate the internet, mediums like this blog, to censure the voice of independent thinkers. The thinking of communist indeed!

Both British magazines and newspapers would do themselves a ‘big favour’ and avoid embarrassment by not taking anything the Tribune or its representatives issue as credible. Particularly information presented to them by the newspaper’s managing editor John Marquis.

  • John Marquiz

    Bey leave my good name alone you scoundrels. 🙂

  • media

    FROM FRANKLYN WILSON

    THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY MR. MARQUIS IS WORTHY OF NOTE.

    HOPEFULLY THE “ERROR” HELPS MR. MARQUIS TO CONSIDER HOW SOME OF HIS WRITTEN COMMENTS IMPACT OTHERS HE MAY DECIDE TO BE A LITTLE LESS SHARP AND DEFINITIVE IN SOME OF THOSE WRITINGS.
    WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THIS OBSERVATION, HE MAY CERTAINLY WISH TO RE-CONSIDER THE COMMENTS HE MADE ABOUT BISHOP NEIL ELLIS, SINCE FOR EXAMPLE, WHILE HE WAS PUBLISHING THAT UNFORTUNATE ARTICLE BISHOP ELLIS WAS ACTIVELY ENGAGED WITH NONE OTHER THAN THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE IN ATTEMPTING TO DEAL WITH THE CIVIL UNREST WHICH WAS TAKING PLACE IN BIMINI,THE HOMETOWN OF BISHOP ELLIS.
    HOPEFULLY MORE WILL SHORTLY BE DONE TO SHOW WHY HIS COMMENTS ABOUT BISHOP ELLIS WERE SO UNFORTUNATE.