.jpg)
"Calm down dear, it's only a political debate!"
From the National Union of Journalists today:
We believe the BBC is wrong to invite the BNP to appear on Question Time and will support any member who refuses to work on this week’s programme in line with the union’s code of conduct and conscience clause.
The NUJ applauds journalists in the BBC and elsewhere around the UK who are subjecting the BNP’s racist propaganda to professional scrutiny – and exposing their lies where they find them.
There is no opportunity for this sort of forensic examination in the knock-about soapbox environment of Question Time.
Interesting. I’m not here to debate the presence of the BNP on QT. Indeed, this post should stand whether I agree or disagree.
My issue is with the NUJ deciding to speak on behalf of its members without having asked them in the first place.
If public opinion polls are to be believed, the nation is around 60 per cent in favour of the BBC’s decision. Therefore, it’s likely a sizable portion of NUJ members are in favour too.
Not all, maybe not even a majority, but enough to question the NUJ’s judgment in declaring the Union as a whole is against the show.
By releasing a statement like this, its effectively putting words into its members’ mouths without asking permission.
Dave, the union’s statement is in line with its “oppose and expose” policy. See http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=1263.
Agree with you, Dave – I am in favour of the BNP being on QT. Democracy demands that everyone has a voice, however repellent. Thatcher silenced Sinn Fein in the 80s, and that was wrong, even though I disagreed with Sinn Fein’s affiliation with the IRA. It’s the thin end of the wedge to decide who can and can’t be heard. The BNP must be allowed to air their repulsive views; they expose themselves as disgusting racists. And there’s no kicking like a kicking delivered by a QT audience. I really object to my union speaking for me without asking my opinion.
@Michael – thanks for that link.
I think my issue is that the NUJ could have had a say along the lines of “We support any union member who refuses to work on this programme”. That would have pleased me … it’s saying the NUJ respects the choice and integrity of its members.
But instead they’ve opted to have a stern stance. A stance which says “This is wrong”. As Kate has shown – not everyone believes that. And all evidence suggests the majority are behind the BBC.
So why has the NUJ decided to speak for its members, without knowing what the members actually think?
From the NUJ rule book:
“The NEC shall administer the affairs of the union and shall have power in accordance with the rules to do such things on behalf of the union as may be expedient including affiliating to any campaign or organisation that promotes the principles of press freedom and/or workers rights. Unless specifically prevented by these rules the NEC shall have power to interpret the rules and to determine any question on which the rules are silent and no policy has been laid down by ADM.” Rule 8 (r) http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=182
The NUJ’s policy on the BNP has already been set by a number of ADMs and the NEC, who discussed the issue, did its job of interpreting that policy in the light of the current circumstance. That’s how the union’s democracy works.
I’m another NUJ member who wants to see Griffin make a twat of himself on national television. I oppose censorship and support free speech – and that means for everyone, however odious their views. If we are a democracy then we cannot pick and choose who may be heard and who not, because we then stop being a democracy and become a dictatorship – the very thing the BNP itself would impose if it ever took power.
The union may speak in my name when it says it will support members who refuse to work on the programme, but it may not purport to speak for me as to the rightness or wrongness of the BBC’s decision to invite a minority politician on Question Time.
Louise, the union speaks for the union as a collective – individual members are, of course, free to disagree and hold a different opinion. To be clear, the NUJ’s stance is not one of censorship – the union does not have a “No Platform” stance – but one of insisting on appropriate challenge of the BNP. It was the view of the NEC that Question Time is not an appropriate forum for robust challenge of the BNP, in contrast with a proper journalistic programme like Newsnight, for example. I note the BBC appears to have recognised this issue as they are reported to have empowered Dimbleby to go beyond his normal role as chair to challenge and question Griffin.
Of course it’s an appropriate forum to challenge Griffin – it’s a forum of the public moderated by Dimbleby, who is an eminent journalist. How much more appropriate can you get? FFS, it’s this kind of pompous crap that makes me wonder why I continue to pay my dues to the union.
I wholly support the work the NUJ does for and on behalf of the membership, and I was a chapel official at the FT for more than a decade. I just wish the NUJ would get down off its high political horse and concentrate on doing what a trade union should do, which is support and work for its members, not strike irritating political stances that don’t represent the membership.
Hear, hear Kate. I totally agree with your last post.
Donnacha, I am indeed disagreeing, as is my right as a paid-up member. If the NEC wants to put out public statements on behalf of the membership, then it needs to seek the agreement of the membership. I don’t recall any motion being passed at ADM on official NUJ opposition to QT being an “inappropriate forum”. So where was it decided? In a closed meeting? Down the pub? This is outside the NEC’s remit, which is to support members not make contentious statements. That rule you quoted from our rule book is to do with press freedom and/or workers rights, neither of which applies to the Question Time issue.
Sorry, Louise, but this is exactly in the NEC’s remit. The NUJ has, over the years, passed numerous policy positions on the BNP at ADM – the democratic representation of the membership. It’s the NEC’s job to interpret these policy statements and this was done at a properly constituted meeting of the NEC (an open meeting if you want to attend and definitely not in the pub).
As for Question Time being “it’s a forum of the public moderated by Dimbleby, who is an eminent journalist” – yes, it’s a forum, not a journalistic interview. Do you watch Question Time? Where politicians get time to spout whatever nonsense they like, followed by the next politician spouting their nonsense. It’s a dreadful programme in general, no real debate, no proper challenge, minimal attempt to properly reflect society. NUJ policy is that the BNP should only get airtime when they can properly be challenged – that wasn’t decided at the last NEC meeting, it’s standing policy confirmed numerous times at ADM.
Finally, on Dimbleby – http://donnachadelong.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/journalists-job-losses-and-question-time/ – ’nuff said.
Donnacha, c’mon, you’re not fooling anyone. You quote the rule book on principles for press freedom and/or workers’ rights then somehow manage to twist that into being legit to make gesture politics statements. The NEC is out of touch. Most non-member hacks I know won;t join the NUJ precisely because the union is perceived as being too busy with making political statements and stances instead of actually engaging with the issues that really concern jobbing journos.
And it’s the dominance of NUJ Left that pushes through such gesture politics at the expense of people who’d really rather see union energy expended on issues around job cuts, rates and so on that whether QT is an “appropriate platform” or not.
And frankly, having just watched QT and seen Griffin thoroughly trashed and exposed by both panel and audience, the NEC has just demonstrated that it’s talking out of its arse.
I’ll keep paying my subs because as a freelance I need to be able to fall back on John Toner for advice when things go tits up. Otherwise, I really couldn’t be arsed. And I sincerely hope Michael Cross wins the election for the editorship of The Journalist because at least then I’ll be confident someone is getting on with proper union business instead of posturing.
When I was living in London, I was a member of London magazine branch. Every year, we invited people to a meeting at which we voted on motions for the ADM.
Members would get the chance to propose their own motions and the branch would vote on whether or not to back them. There would also be an opportunity to decide the branch’s position on other branches’ motions. The branch elects delegates to the ADM, who then vote on motions at the event.
I realise the branch structure is not perfect – it’s often hard to get to meetings and freelances in particular sometimes feel marginalised. But if you want to change the union it really is important to make your voices heard when policy is decided.
I oppose facism too. But I agree with Dave’s position that the BNP should be allowed to appear on Question Time, but staff who don’t wish to work on the programme should have the union’s support.
I know that if the sleeping majority of members made their feelings known on particular policies when motions are being drafted for ADM we would have very different policies.
We’d still have these debates though, and surely that’s a healthy thing? Nothing to tear up your union card over!
Not a criticism of anyone – just an observation. I know if any newcomers turned up to any of the branches I’ve been involved in I’m sure they would be warmly welcomed. : )
There’s a simple answer to all this and arguing on blogs isn’t it – ADM is next month. Go along to your next branch meeting and propose a Late Notice Motion (that’s a motion based on events that happened after the deadline for close of motions) arguing what you want to argue. If you want to criticise the NEC, if you want to change union policy on the BNP, that’s how you do it.
Blogging never has been the NUJ’s style, has it?
But I digress.
I’m not a member of the NUJ. It’s a lot of money to pay for a union which I can’t trust to represent me. So I have no way of expressing my views other than on here.
Dave, it seems to me that the first step to influencing what the NUJ says on your behalf is to join it.
Dave, you’re not going to have much influence on what the NUJ says on your behalf until you join it.
Agree with Michael.
“Blogging never has been the NUJ’s style, has it?”
Are you really trying to argue that blogging should replace democratic structures that seek to represent all members? Really? We can argue the point here until the cows come home, but if you actually want to do something about it, join the union, get involved in your branch and stop complaining.
Also, as a BBC journalist, you can largely thank the NUJ (and the other unions there) for your decent pay grade, your high quality training regime, the organisation’s focus on health and safety and all the other things the unions have achieved for ALL staff members in the BBC over the years. Of course you can’t trust a union of which you’re not a member to represent you – a union is its members and their democratic decisions – it has no interest in representing you until you join.
As an Irish freelance journalist and press photographer of some 43 years , I have to agree with Dave.
The BBC has an enviable reputation in the promotion of Freedom of Expression – and so has Ireland in our written Constitution, Bunreacht na h-Eireann, which protects free speech .
What if the BAJ or the CIOJ ot both refused to cover militant extremist Lefties on QT, one does not have to wonder what the reaction of the NUJ would be then !
I applaud Dave’s decision in favour of Freedom of Expression in a world that the NUJ supremos try to stand on its head .
As for Griffin on QT, he was in fact well behaved, did not impugn his right to Freedom of Expression accorded to him as a British citizen ( and a licence fee payer, I hope ! ) on the show ( for that us what it is, a political entertainment show , not a serious intellectual forum )and he also took mob criticism from a section of the audience quietly without any fuss.
It was great television, as it was meant to be , great entertainment, a good show –
exactly what the extremists who run the NUJ want to deny us
I note that Dave has an Irish surname, Lee – and even has a river called after him that flows through Cork – thus his great sense of justice and fair play ( BIG GRIN )
Cheers,
Michael .
Not to omit Donnacha De Long from mention either , as he has a Gaelic first name and a Norman surname – and we all know from our history that the Normans in Ireland became ” more Irish than the Irish themselves ” !
However, I would like to point out to Donnacha that Dave now has a choice of unions – the NUJ, the BAJ and the CIOJ, and I know that the CIOJ have been active on behalf of journalistic staff in the BBC, as they are in RTE in Ireland.
I have been a Member of both NUJ and CIOJ throughout my 43 years, and now in semi-retirement I am thinking of giving the BAJ a shot, just for good measure to introduce an element of closure at this stage of my life heh heh heh …
I would be joining the BAJ at this stage, not to further any ambition of my own as I’m too old now for all of that , but to support them as I see that they are providing the very best service as a union for the working journalist, of the three on offer ( IMHO ) .
The CIOJ went out with the Empire, the NUJ has more policies than any political party I know – and mostly the wrong ones at that
Of course under Article 40 of the Irish Constitution nobody in the epublic is required to join any union at all, so the closed shop is de jure though not de facto unconsitutional in Ireland ( Quirke v NUJ, High Court, Dublin, 1981, before Mr. Justice McWilliams ) .
Of course my fellow posters here should not belong to any journalist union – their writing is too good, perhaps P.E.N. International or the Society of Authors
And all our problems about deciding which union to join would be solved under P.M. Nick Griffin – we wouldn’t have any !
I suspect that under P.M. Griffin that we Irish would have to fight our War of Independence all over again, 1916 and all of that … just think of it, we’d have to learn to hate the English from scratch again
Give us Gordon Brown ten times over in preference to the Griffin Menu !!!
Merry Xmas All .
Cheers,
Michael .
You are a very intelligent person!