The arrival of the NUJ’s monthly magazine, Journalist, has sparked further debate on the union’s widely ridiculed “Witness Contributor code of conduct”. The magazine reprints the code in full there, alongside a report from the Mediaguardian debate at which the thing was launched. Unfortunately, that debate did not appear to inform the document.
Since the magazine came out two commenters have added to my last post on the thing; thanks to Neil and, especially, Martin Cloake, who left a lengthy contribution defending the process through which the code was developed.
Both commenters suggest I should offer more positive suggestions as to what the union should do. But I think they misunderstand my position: I’m not sure the union has any role here – not, at least, in terms of proscribing sets of standards and rules which it wants employers (not necessarily its membership) to enforce against people it regards as being competition to its members (citizen journalists).
The union also badly misunderstands the most likely forms of “witness contributions”, so the code’s clauses end up looking very heavy-handed (should we pay for everything? What – even ten word hotel recommendations on Been There? Or comments on our blogs? A trackback? All, after all, are contributions of sorts).
So here’s my positive contribution: can someone, please, define a “witness contributor” before we take the debate any further?
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « In print
- » New world, new life
- BROWSE / IN Digital revolution
- « More witless contributions from the NUJ
- » What does the Guardian sound like?
COMMENTS / 5 COMMENTS
neil thought this on Feb 27 06 at 10:45 amHi,
“can someone, please, define a “witness contributor” before we take the debate any further?” I’d ask a question before that – why do we need a code?
Members of the public – aka citizens – have always been able to write into newspapers, or send their photos. New technologies mean that they can do that more quickly and more easily, which in turn means they can contribute stuff that is more timely and, therefore, more useful, at least in a news context.
But, fundamentally, they are not doing anything different from what they’ve done in the past. It’s just a question of volume. There might be practical questions on how much of it to use, or how to manage it all – but that’s it.
If lots of people go around snapping photos and trying to get them published, that raises social issues – e.g. how does it redefine the divide between public/private spaces – and there is a debate the NUJ might contribute to there. But the NUJ can’t seek to regulate the behaviour of members of the public.
Er trying to be constructive… the NUJ should focus more on how journalists – freelance and staff – can use these technologies to encourage their readers to contribute to developing stories, and comment on finished ones: something that good journalists should be doing already.
If the NUJ sees “citizen journalism” – horrible phrase – only as a threat, and something to regulate, that’s a shame.
Oh, that was a ramble!
Neil
Martin Cloake thought this on Feb 27 06 at 12:58 pmI think the truth is that some in the NUJ see CJ as a threat, and some see it as a positive development. The union’s discussions so far have reflected this. I’m happy that we’ve adopted an initial position that recognises the positive developments and tries to minimise the negative ones.
Why a code? A number of reasons – briefly. There is a need to defend journalists jobs against employers who see CJ merely in terms of cost-cutting, a need to argue for a promote ethical values and standards, a need to ensure the safety of anyone reporting events, a need to make sure people are aware of legal rights and pitfalls.
None of these things mean defending any kind of closed shop. And it certainly doesn’t mean we’re trying to “regulate members of the public”. I’ve spent a lot of time arguing the case that we should pursue precisely the kind of positive engagement Neil mentions in his post. The democratisation of the media is not something any progressive person can oppose, and you can’t deal with citizen journalism without dealing with citizens.
On the description – I’ve already said I would have preferred CJ rather than witness contribs, but there are people who don’t think CJ is right for a number of reasons. Any suggestions? The way language works is usually that everyone defaults to a particular term as a shorthand reference. So it seems to be CJ.
Definition? Well, we know we’re not talking about people who write letters, send the odd photo, are interviewed or any of the other examples that have been dredged up. The Collins dictionary defines journalism as ”the profession or practice of reporting about, photographing or editing news stories for one of the mass media”. It’s not a perfect definition (only mass media?) but it does get across the sense of process, that journalism is not just about saying or showing what you see but about context and presentation – and dare I say interpretation?
The fact that this debate is happening shows the NUJ has a more constructive position than some here are giving it credit for.
neil Baker thought this on Feb 27 06 at 2:29 pmMartin -
You state that: “I’ve spent a lot of time arguing the case that we should pursue precisely the kind of positive engagement Neil mentions in his post.” The only version of the code I’ve seen is that reprinted in the March edition of the NUJ magazine. That says nothing about the positive aspects of this phenomenon.
If the positive arguments are not reflected in the Code, is that because you lost the argument? (if so, why?) Or is there a fuller version of the Code somewhere that I’ve not seen?
Neil
Neil Mc thought this on Feb 27 06 at 5:45 pmMartin – we’re making progress if we know it’s not letter writers, people who send the odd photo or who are interviewed. Unfortunately, the code doesn’t exclude these groups, so I’d argue it’s wide open to misinterpretation.
I’d also argue people who offer up small snippets of information – a tip for a good hotel, or a fragment of info in a bigger story – are worth bracketing in the same group. So they get to stay outside the remit of the code, right?
But deciding what does fall under the description of journalism isn’t that easy, as your dictionary quote shows. How does one define a “news story” in this age, when niche and micro media are burrowing deeper and deeper into subjects and communities?
Martin cloake thought this on Feb 27 06 at 6:11 pmAssume is always a dangerous word to use in journalism, but the assumption was that the existence of a code which engaged with the issue was a recognition that it was positive. Otherwise there would have been the kind of condemnatory motion which really would have shown the NUJ was out of touch.
So I wouldn’t say I lost the argument, but winning and losing is as irrelevant as for and against in this case. Citizen journalism exists – and whenever I’ve read features about it or entered discussions everyone knows what they are talking about, and it isn’t letter writers, sources, tipsters etc – and media workers, and their unions, need to engage with it.
If I remember the NUJ mag article correctly, it does make clear we view this as apositive development, and for what it’s worth, the conference motion talks of the “positive effect on the media by opening up a space for people to present their views and personal situations to a wider audience”.
There’s an interesting debate about what now defines a news story, but that’s linked with exactly why we need some kind of thought-through approach. At the end of the NUJ/Guardian debate, Jeremy Dear said: “There are certain professional standards that have to be maintained, so that whether it is new or traditional media it is still a reliable source for people to get information about their communities.” At the heart of this is not only the question of access to media or ability to create new media, but also the question of how reliable the public sees particualr outlets to be.
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated. I'll delete unpleasantness. Email me if you spot a comment that crosses the line.
Your comments