You ask what ‘NUJ members with a clue’ should do. I posted my thoughts on journalism.co.uk, so apologies for the repetition and the length of the contribution I’ve posted below. Apologies too if the conclusion appears to be too close to “joining a fucking committee”, but as another contributor points out, that’s more productive that “just criticising”.

Martin Cloake

It appears the old sport of ‘bash the union’ is alive and well when it comes to the citizen journalism debate. So it’s worth looking at how this debate has developed.

In response to requests from members, the NUJ’s national executive spent time consulting and discussing on an initial code of conduct to be applied to this new area of media. It was right that we did so. Members wanted some guidance and a union of media professionals should be actively involved in debate about industry developments. An initial policy suggestion was felt by a majority to be badly thought out, so we consulted more widely and thought more thoroughly. Some members didn’t like that, but I believe it was right to take the time to adopt a workable position. So we took the flak while we spent time and effort consulting and debating.

The result was the code of conduct adopted at the NEC meeting. Inevitably after any discussion process there is an element of compromise – my preference on terminology for example was to use ‘citizen journalist’ because that’s the phrase that’s entered the language, but I understand the argument for ‘witness contributor’. But the code represents a starting point. It still has to be discussed at our national conference, but it is – to my knowledge – the first time anyone has attempted to draw up a framework for dealing with this complex and rapidly developing area of the media. That must be a good thing.

Of course there are a variety of views within the NUJ and among journalists about what CJ represents. It is a fact that there is a potential threat to full-time, staff or freelance, journalists from unscrupulous employers who could use CJ contributions to undermine pay and standards, and the NUJ is right to attempt to prevent this. It is a fact that there are many issues relating to ethics, standards and credibility which journalists will be more aware of than CJ’s. It’s also a fact that the age of citizen journalism is here and must be dealt with.

My approach has been to argue that the NUJ needs to bear all these things in mind. I believe the initial step we’ve taken allows us to protect our members while at the same time engaging with citizen journalism and citizen journalists in order to preserve and drive up standards. As a progressive union, I believe we should welcome the democratisation of the media citizen journalism represents.

The NUJ hasn’t ‘delivered a lecture’ – it has consulted and continues to do so. One way we did so was to organise a round-table discussion in partnership with The Guardian about the issue. This recognised the need for discussion, rather than the exposition of views ‘for’ and ‘against’ which often skews these debates. But our view of partnership was different to at least one senior member of that paper’s editorial staff, who went into print with a piece which first misrepresented our position and then proceeded to rubbish it. Although the print piece was mild compared to some of the wild accusations lobbed our way on-line.

Despite some of the attempts to argue that the NUJ is collectively too thick to grasp what’s going on, a great deal of the criticism seems to come down to more familiar ground. The BBC’s Pete Clifton, for example, says that while he could “wholeheartedly endorse” (without specification) some aspects of the code, the suggestion that the BBC should sometimes make payments for contributions is “more problematic”. If I were a cynical man, my response would be “well, he would say that, wouldn’t he.”

Sifting through much of the criticism it is easy to find enough red herrings with which to open a fish stall. Whoever is arguing, for example, that subjects we interview should be considered ‘citizen journalists’?

It’s a great tradition within the NUJ for members to publicly chastise their union in the strongest terms for all manner of stupidity. I’ve always thought more would be achieved, for the NUJ and society at large, if all that energy went into working to improve what we do. If people believe the whole area of citizen journalism should be left to the unregulated market, they should say so – at least the disagreement would be clear. If they believe this initial code of conduct can be improved, they should suggest ways in which this can be done. The NUJ is engaging constructively with the debate – it would be heartening if its critics did likewise.

Their position reminds of the way they used to treat freelance journalists – as part-time amatuers who were doing their (staff) members out of work. That’s why I left the union over 10 years ago. I’ve rejoined since, and respect a lot of what they do, but they’re out of step on this one.

Do you have any thoughts on what role the NUJ should play with regard to Citizen Journalism (or whatever it gets called)? Rather than just criticising.

Neil

Media organisations urged to publish guidelines for witness contributors
Posted