Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

3 comments from readers

donnacha
23 April 2007 at 14:33

Oh dear, not the New Statesman as well. As a member of the union's National Executive, I'm not going to comment on the rights or wrongs of the boycott - it was a democratic decision by the representatives of our members at our Annual Delegate Meeting. However, to say that "there is a real need for union activists to get back in touch with working journalists" is a dreadful slight to our hard-working officials and is in absolute conflict with the facts on the ground. Disputes in the Guardian, the Independent, the Express, the FT - and that's just the nationals - a groundbreaking agreement with Johnston Press on multimedia working, the establishment of a major commission on multimedia working, the Journalism Matters campaign, strikes, a union day of action to protect journalism, a successful campaign in the BBC, successful defense of Irish members' pensions - I could go on and on and on and on. Really, did your research into the topic actually go beyond reading the biased and ill-informed coverage of one of over 200 motions at our ADM? Please Martin, if you want to have a say in the union's decisions, please go to a branch meeting (if you do already, I apologise). Not only will you have an input, but you might actually find out how in touch with working journalists the union is.

Jeremy Dear
23 April 2007 at 16:08

Martin Bright makes some valuable points. He is right that this discussion and debate is to a large extent a diversion from the daily efforts of the union to protect the wages, conditions ad professional rights of its members.

It is a great pity therefore that everything good we do day in day out gets overshadowed by one vote (of 207) at the union's conference.For example here are just a fraction of the workplace issues we are dealing with this week:

Monday

National Copyright Day conference for 200 delegates

Leaflet the BBC over plans to introduce adverts on the website

Represent features subs at the Daily Record

Hold a liaison meeting with OFCOM over public service broadcasting

Pay dispute meeting at Lexis Nexis

Cardiff and South East Wales Branch meeting

Tuesday

Annual pay talks at the Greenock Telegraph

Hold a mass meeting of Newsquest staff in Glasgow facing redundancies

Meeting re redundancy at Christian Aid

Independent Newspapers outsourcing/redundancy talks

Representing freelance member in small claims court

Wednesday

London Vigil in solidarity with Alan Johnston

House agreement talks at Drogheda Independent Company

Meetings over Cumbrian Newspapers pensions dispute

South Wales Argus disciplinary case

Thursday

Employment status talks in regional newspapers in Ireland

Journalism Matters campaign event in Dublin

Daily Record/Sunday Mail Chapel AGM

Trinity Mirror South pay talks

Friday

Redactive Chapel meeting over holiday pay for casuals

Meetings with photographers' organisations

RTE Pension negotiations

Union reps training course at Harcourt

And that is just a tiny, tiny fraction of the work going on each week to protect members' interests and improve terms and conditions across the industry. It does not take in to account the legal cases on equal pay, disability discrimination, redundancy, unfair dismissal and employment status or the representation at grievance or disciplinary hearings or the work of the equality, training and campaigns teams.

Our conference celebrated the union's centenary. Throughout our history we have been committed to defending journalists and journalism – rest assured, we remain so today.

It is also worth noting that so much of the media coverage of the discussion has been inaccurate. For example, it is not true as some newspapers asserted we didn't discuss Alan Johnston - we had a whole seperate section of conference devoted to his plight including the BBC, International Federation of Journalists and colleagues of Alan's, were thanked by his family and so on and also went on to condemn all those across the Middle east who use violence and threats against journalists and journalism. In other sessions we also codemned China, Zimbabwe, Colombia, Pakistan and other countries including across the Arab world for their press freedom and human rights violations.

We have had long-standing policy criticising Saudi Arabia for its total lack of trade union rights and have supported Iranian journalists over a decade as they struggle against oppression by the autocratic regime in Tehran.

More than that we spent 99% of the time and 99% of the motions discussing industrial and workplace issues - integration, freedom of information act, equality, pay, working hours, union rights, copyright and all the other issues which are far more important to members than this. That is what is the main focus of our union and will remain so. The motion is not we believe about the NUJ boycotting Israel or about taking sides as journalists but expresses a belief that the TUC and UK government should be bringing more pressure to bear on the Israeli government in respect of its collective punishment of, in particular, palestinian journalists for the crimes of individual terrorists.

The NUJ is one of the most democratic unions anywhere in the world. Our democratic structures from time to time throw up hugely controversial issues. When they do members engage in the debate over them and some times overturn them. Martin is right - those who disagree with either the direction of the union or individual policies should not resign their membership they should participate in its democratic structures. Greater participation enhances our democracy..

Jeremy Dear, General Secretary NUJ

Crouch
27 April 2007 at 11:30

"Massive own goal"? "Political grandstanding"? "Credibility undermined"? Martin, I humbly suggest that you might be undermining the NUJ's credibility with bombast and bluster like this. It makes very readable copy, but perhaps you could look seriously at the issues instead?

Most importantly, has our integrity as journalists been damaged by the vote on Israel? As Peter Wilby points out in his MediaGuardian column (April 23), the British media are well known for their robust editorial positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict, yet there is hardly any suggestion that journalists might be compromised by working for these media.

On the contrary (this is me now, not Peter), every time I see Trevor Kavanagh or Melanie Phillips wheeled out on the telly as serious journalists and worthy commentators, that's when I worry about our profession's credibility being undermined. Lest we forget, it's not particularly high in the first place. Journalists usually rank just above MPs and estate agents in BBC polls on respect for the professions. Going along with the Iraqi WMD nonsense didn't do our credibility any favours, by the way -- so why all the self-righteous NUJ-bashing because of the Israel vote? It's Matthew chapter 7 verses 3-5 all over again. (Something about motes and beams, I recall.)

Journalists’ political views inform how we select and investigate our subject matter. Vigorous politics – of both right and left – therefore often stimulate the very best reporting. Any professional understands how to excise their opinions from the work they produce. But it is facile to suggest that journalists should jettison our personal views at work. Worse, it is a recipe for stifling dissent in the newsroom.

We work in one of the most politicised sectors of British industry. A demand that journalists and their organisations cease to be political hands control of our copy to our employers. We cannot allow governments, the Richard Desmonds and Rupert Murdochs to become the arbiters of editorial standards.

The NUJ has not picked on Israel unfairly. There is almost full international agreement on the unsavoury aspects of, for example, China or Zimbabwe, but there is relative silence on the injustice suffered by the Palestinians. The NUJ is therefore doing a service to our profession by highlighting this distortion. I hope the union's bold stance will inspire journalists who want to report the big issues of our time, rather than go along with the preferences of governments and proprietors.

David Crouch