YourSay... ç inviting letters, comments, tweets
Why are we partly backing section 40?
What did the NUJ do in the great battle against section 40? While the national and local press came out with all guns blazing, the NUJ produced a popgun of a response, hours before the consultation ended. Its “partial” acceptance of section 40 shows how deeply
compromised the union has become ever since it backed state- approved press regulator Impress, which is not supported by any major employer of journalists. Some within the union always seem to see battles about press freedom in the UK as being about the proprietors rather than sticking up for journalists. “Which side are you on?” goes the famous union song. How
a journalists’ union cannot bring itself to be on the side of independent media such as the Guardian, the Financial Times and Private Eye, investigative journalists such as Tom Bower and Andrew Norfolk and press freedom campaign groups such as Index of Censorship in totally condemning section 40 beats me. Talking of consultations, why not an run an
email poll of all NUJ members to see if they are happy to see their union lined up with the Max Mosley-funded Impress? Jon Slattery West Sussex
The NUJ needs to fight against section 40 The NUJ’s contribution to the government consultation on Section 40 makes a good point: “Enabling complainants to initiate court actions against publishers without any fear of financial consequence if proven to be baseless, would have a seriously detrimental effect
on...journalism.” But this is a big understatement. If enacted, all publishers of ‘news- related material’ could face unmeritorious litigation that could inflict unjust and potentially disastrous costs. As many media titles untainted by the ethical focus of the Leveson Inquiry have pointed out, this would pose a grave threat to investigative journalism. The NUJ needs to be a very vocal part of the campaign against this financial cudgel aimed at bringing the media into line ethically.
22 | theJournalist
Unfortunately, the Royal Charter and the recognition of Max Moseley’s Impress appears to have closed off the debate about a really independent regulator and our arguments for a conscience clause protecting journalists against bullying proprietors have so far been ignored. But our desire to right the wrongs
uncovered in the Leveson Inquiry should not lead us to support measures that trust the Government or the judiciary to be guardians of principled journalism. We are right to be sceptical about Ipso and Impress but we need to go further and withdraw our partial support for the flawed Section 40 and canvas our members’ views about how the NUJ can be part of a truly independent press watchdog. Steve Bird FoC FT group chapel and NEC member (personal capacity)
£30 prize
letter H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
Should we be fighting for the biased BBC? I have mixed feelings about the NUJ’s campaign to save the BBC. I have been a member of the NUJ since 1972 so I have a natural affinity and sympathy with all journalists. But the BBC? I used to accept what I was being told
by BBC news and current affairs programmes. I used to trust the BBC. Now that we have so many other sources of information, it is easy to see that the BBC is a propaganda tool for the British establishment. News broadcasts are disgraceful in their omissions and distortions. They pack audiences for programmes like Question Time with people of particular views to push an establishment agenda. BBC news is not balanced. In
Scotland, trust in the BBC’s integrity is at its lowest level ever recorded.
Please keep comments to 200 words maximum
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
Email to:
journalist@nuj.org.uk Post to: The Journalist 308-312 Gray’s Inn Road London WC1X 8DP Tweet to: @mschrisbuckley
Every journalist connected with the BBC should go online and call up London Calling, the programme that the BBC is deeply embarrassed about and does not want you to see. Check it out at:
https://t.co/c5V0lV8x32. Save the BBC? Why? So we can be fed a daily diet of state propaganda? I don’t think so. Frank Beattie Kilmarnock
Papers are as important now as they ever were Chris Summers’ letter “Sad state of local news” was interesting but too pessimistic. He started on the Petersfield Herald in 1990. I started on the then Southern Evening Echo in 1987. I’m still there, basically doing the same job and still loving it. Reporting remains a great way to earn a living, even if I look with a twinge – only a twinge – of envy at where some of my colleagues have ended up (two editing national newspapers). My newspapers (the Daily Echo and Hampshire Chronicle) still report the courts, district council meetings, and (occasionally) parish councils. The idea that back in the day the courts and councils were stuffed with eager reporters is nonsense. When I started, the-now Southern Daily Echo had around 50 reporters. One district reporter had his “office” in a pub, another legendarily built his house on company time, a third was known as “***** **** of the Daily Telegraph” because of his freelancing. A sub was sacked for being sick out of an office window after a boozy lunch. There was great journalism back then and there is also great journalism today. I know that the clock is ticking on newsprint (but it is ticking more slowly than digital zealots would tell you) but it is too easy to talk newspapers down. They are still the only game in town when it comes to holding power to account. Andrew Napier Winchester
TIM ELLIS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28
