Neil’s complaint, that this code isn’t easily understood by the community it might talking about (but he’s not sure), is invalid - it’s not written for the community, it’s written for his bosses to sign up to.

Er, I don’t want to be simplistic, but surely the ONLY people this should be written for IS the community. After all, it’s THEIR material you want to use.

In fact, where is the consultation with the CJ community?

This all seems very arse-about-face to me — and unnecessarily so. If I didn’t know the calibre and background of the people on the panel I would think that they are trying to snub Citizen Journalism out, rather than trying to help support it.

Do you know whether The Guardian are formally signing up for this? I know they were part of the discussion, but I just want to confirm whether that means they are signed up for it too?

I’m going to see what the state of play is @ BBC. I’m equally concerned about this as you are.

Maybe we could compare notes via email?

Cheers
Ben

I don’t think anyone’s saying that there’s no need for a code, or that nobody asked for it to be put together. And the majority of it seems perfectly suited to guidance on giving a fair deal to those contributors, which is exactly what I would expect.

But there seems a strange disconnect between some parts of what the document outlines and the reality of the situation on the ground. Some of the key questions - submission, rights, professional v amateur etc - remain either unresolved or relatively unworkable.

Here’s my fundamental point, however. I still don’t know what a “witness contributor” is. It’s great that somebody’s compiling all the terms - what fun for them. But when will the NUJ tell me what they actually *mean*?

That it did not, in fact, come out of that discussion, explains a great deal.

I look forward to seeing how many media organisations sign up to this.

As for the term, we’ve actually got someone currently compiling the variety of terms currently being used, there’s far more than two. The NUJ has chosen to use one. I will reiterate that this code is intended for media organisations, not for the happy snapper with a phone in the street. We’ll come to that later.

It might surprise people, but we were actually asked to put this together by professionals looking for our recommendations. As Neil is more than likely very aware, as soon as the code was finalised by the union, there was a roundtable discussion with representatives of a number of employers - http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/or......html#more . So Neil’s complaint, that this code isn’t easily understood by the community it might talking about (but he’s not sure), is invalid - it’s not written for the community, it’s written for his bosses to sign up to.

Oh, and just in case people aren’t sure, I’m the New Media representative on the union’s National Executive (these posts, though, are in a personal capacity).

For those who don’t know, Animal Crossing is, essentially, a game where cute animals teach you the value of money. It’s enjoyable though - wage slavery has never been more fun although there is the very real concern that a generation of younger Nintend…

I know those readers (and viewers) who submit photography and video or are the ones who have got a lot of headlines recently. But there’s a far stronger current of wider contributions that I think is more important to journalists - bloggers; those commenting on blogs; eyewitnesses asked to write a first-hand report; those other written or photographed reader experiences that are actively solicited; in fact, for that matter, those who write good old-fashioned letters. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

But does this code cover them under its list of “witness contributors”? If it does, its clauses seem rather short-sighted and unworkable in several places. If it doesn’t, then why isn’t it clearer and wider in its remit?

I understand that you want to protect the rights of any contributors (as do I), but I’m left bamboozled as to who actually qualifies under this code. And I understand that the primary interest of the NUJ is to protect the interests of journalists, but I don’t think that something like clause 3 benefits anyone (is “witness contribution” actually threatening jobs? and why should I be forced to use an NUJ member if a member of the public - who I will respect as a contributor - has a better angle?)