This is the last of three posts dealing with Laurie Penny’s New Statesman piece on the student movement and how the movement relates to journalists. Part one is here and part two here.
Turns out it’s not easy to decide how the movement, such as it is, should relate to the press. There are no simple, clear lines here. As mentioned in my last post, the Free School have chosen total hostility to all mainstream media – check communique #2 for more, and their amazing ‘paywall’ here. They’re probably right. A project like theirs – carving out space for re-imagining education – doesn’t need the media, and might be actively harmed by it (imagine a swarm of journos, present at various point at the UCL occupation, invading a session. Hardly ‘free’).
But the UCL occupation was a bit different. We were, in some ways, doing the same thing. But we were also campaigning for a specific national goal, on a deadline: pressuring, pushing and shaming MPs into rejecting the increase in fees, and attempting to get our management to do the same. I think press coverage largely helped, though that doesn’t mean all of it, or not criticising it. One size doesn’t fit all.
The Free School communique is worth having another look at. It doesn’t say “fuck off if you’re a journalist”. It’s more like “you can’t do your journalism here”. From what I’ve heard, a distinction is drawn between ‘journalists’ and ‘people who also happen to be a journalist for their job’ – no one is going to kick you out for owning a press card if you behave by the rules. Journalists can be activists (and people!) too.
That’s a problem for any hard and fast set of ethics for left-wing journalists. What exactly is a journalist? I write a blog, lots of people from UCL write personal blogs, or for more established blogs, and even articles for magazines and newspapers on occasion. In the same way, Laurie Penny started as a blogger, and is clearly a different kind of journalist to Newsnight’s Paul Mason (who turned up frequently, and also… has a blog), though both, I think, would describe themselves as left-wingers of some sort. Then there are journalists like Kate of Hangbitching, doing the hard slog of travelling around and talking to people to get the anti-cuts news out there, mostly online but also occasionally in the dreaded mainstream media. Drawing the ‘journalist’ line – deciding who should be subject to the kind of demands I’m coming to – gets complicated, and it’s a question those of us who write publicly and participate as activists can’t ignore.
Partly I think it rests on the kind of piece being written. Anyone who turns up, is verifiably an at least vaguely on-side journalist, and says “I’m going to write an opinion piece on what I think” is much less likely to do damage. Lifestyle or colour pieces (the awful “Inside X movement” style the New Statesman and Guardian love so much, for example) are much more problematic. They purport to be truthful pictures of actions or movements, and have little room for the author’s politics to be clearly stated. Or, in the worst cases, any politics at all.
I’m starting to think these kinds of articles just aren’t useful for a movement, or a good use of time for activist-aligned journalists. That’s not to say, though, that honest, left-leaning, factual reportage from inside movements can’t be done, or is never helpful. It just doesn’t need the well-turned curlicues of sentences, the piped-on passion of so many ‘insider’ articles. So please, journalist comrades (comrade journalists?) by all means tell it like it is. But here’s some things you might want to consider first.
1. Don’t invite yourself
Contact squats, occupations, organising groups or meetings first to ask if you’re welcome. Never just turn up. You’re likely to get a much more hostile response if you admit you’re a journalist after walking into the middle of a general meeting than if you’ve contacted someone first to advise you want to come and have a look (this probably doesn’t apply to demonstrations, where movements go public).
2. Identify yourself, identify yourself, then do it again
Always make it clear you’re a journalist. Don’t assume everyone you speak to knows who you are, no matter how famous, or that they saw you flash your credentials in a meeting, even if it was five minutes ago. Say you’re a journalist as soon as you open your mouth, and before they open theirs.
3. Check your motives
Remember that while you’re embedded in a movement your interest is not necessarily congruent with everyone else’s. For example, in an anti-cuts group or trade union organising meeting, their struggle to save their jobs might be directly fuelling your job/career. You’re getting something out of activists’ hard work, even if you’re not a careerist and you don’t mean to. Keep your relative privilege in mind, particularly your ability to speak much louder, in press terms, than the actual workers/students/activists waging this fight.
4. Don’t go native
Maybe you’re an activist on your day off. Maybe you’re a full-on, man-the-barricades revolutionary. But if you’re reporting on a movement, you cannot participate in it on equal terms with anyone else. If you participate in decision-making you’re creating the story, not relating it. Bear point 3 in mind too; remember you’re here, at least in part, because it’s your job. Keep a professional distance – a one-foot-in-one-foot-out stance can leave activists feeling betrayed when you finally publish and they remember you’re a journo, not a comrade.
5. Let us speak for ourselves
You likely have contacts and strings to be pulled on in the world of the press. Use these where possible to facilitate the movement speaking for itself – writing articles collectively, for example – rather than just to get yourself work. Ask in collective meetings for the group to discuss how they do and don’t want to be presented and be honest about any pressures on you, like editorial lines or briefs. If there’s a press team or media guidelines, work with them to the letter. Read all press releases, keep on top of decisions made in meetings.
6. Don’t make shit up
In on-the-record discussions (clearly noted as such to all participants) take notes, use sound recorders, and collect contact information. Don’t be tempted to include speech you haven’t got a clear record of, even if you think you can remember it. Get in touch with anyone you’ve quoted before publication to check they’re happy with your record of their words. Do not quote anyone you can’t contact, even if they’re not named explicitly. You might be accused of making them or their words up.
7. Don’t get offended
Regardless of how committed you are to the cause, there will be meetings to be had and decisions to be made that it’s not appropriate for you to be part of – for example, in occupations, legal strategy is often under wraps from the press in case it harms defendents. If asked to leave, leave. Do not throw a strop, or complain. This will only make nice people – and we’re mostly nice people – feel guilty, and question their right to exclude you next time.
8. Leave your feelings at the door
This might be the first political thing you’ve been involved in, or the hundredth. Either way, it’s important to get a sober, grounded assessment of what’s going on and where it’s going from experienced and less-experienced activists alike. Just because you’re excited/optimistic/keen or sceptical/pessimistic/unimpressed doesn’t mean these feelings should necessarily form the basis of your writing. Ask lots of others how they feel about it.
9. Own your politics
If you feel compelled to take a particular political viewpoint on the debates inside a movement or action, say so and say why. Don’t airbrush division to back up your ideas. It’s far more honest and useful to say “Some people said/did this, I don’t agree”. Then responses can be in the form of political ideas, ten million times more productive than arguing over the ‘true’ nature of a movement.
10. Synecdoche, No Thanks
If you only checked out one or two parts of a much broader movement, don’t make them represent the whole. Stick to them, or go do some more visiting.
These are off the top of my head, and may be coloured by repeated bad experiences with our media-producing comrades. So thoughts, comments and critiques are very much welcome.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Just curious, but in the last post you said Penny and yourself have different interpretations of feminism, I’m kind of interested in what you disagree on. Admittedly, I noticed she shifted from a pro sex worker/ S&M feminist to denouncing Amanda Palmer*’s Who killed Amanda Palmer and accusing sex workers for not listening to prostitution abolitionists.
Comment by Jenny — Sun 06 Feb @ 2:03 am
* Not that she’s praise worth recently what with her insensitive response to handicapped feminists regarding her Evelyn Evelyn project. And the fact that I really enjoy Neil Gaiman’s stuff makes it frustrating too.
Comment by Jenny — Sun 06 Feb @ 2:04 am
The problem I have with these rules is contained in point one. You are distinguishing between an open occupation and a demonstration, which just feels false. Yes, there are people sleeping and eating in an occupation/squat, but if its an outwards-facing project, why suddenly flip to inward facing language?
Comment by Graham — Mon 07 Feb @ 10:22 am
“The problem I have with these rules is contained in point one. You are distinguishing between an open occupation and a demonstration, which just feels false. Yes, there are people sleeping and eating in an occupation/squat, but if its an outwards-facing project, why suddenly flip to inward facing language?”
Because demonstrations are public events observed by film, radio, press and internet media, plus countless members of the public, meaning the expectation of privacy is basically nil.
Occupations are where people (temporarily) live and may include sensitive discussions that folks wouldn’t want to see exposed in a national media outlet – legal problems/strategy, physical and emotional trauma, plans for future events, socialising, possibly incriminating private chats one wouldn’t want overheard by a journo eavesdropper, etc., etc.
Quite aside from which, whether or not you consider the concerns over having journalists in an occupation to be valid, those concerns are there and not particularly uncommon. It strikes me as common courtesy, and a way of getting things off on the right foot, to recognise those concerns exist and to act accordingly. Contacting the occupation beforehand is one way of doing so.
Comment by Another Reader — Mon 07 Feb @ 11:32 am
This is really interesting actually. I was at the Occupation for 2 days (didn’t stay over, but came back for the huge march in London) in December, for a mixture of reasons:
1) Curiosity, as a human.
2) Support, as a student
3) As a *journalism* student doing my final-year project on activism
I was constantly in a quandary about it. I’m not actually a journalist. My writing isn’t sold, I’m not gaining anything from it, and I want to support and help as much as I can (though obviously also gain useful information for my project)… I was never quite sure whether my position should be an outsider looking in, or as a young person wanting to be involved. I would like to think that I was quite respectful to the occupiers, in terms of being honest about what I was doing and whether I could quote stuff or not.
I would like to think, too, that in the process of doing this project I have always been honest about who I am, and what I will and won’t use. I consider myself, loosely, to be ‘friends’ with some of the people who were at UCL, and I honestly hope that people feel I have not betrayed their trust because this is something that – far from being unprofessional – I feel strongly about morally… I would truly be horrified if people were angry at me because I misrepresented them.
I think unless something hugely ground breaking and revelatory is told to you ‘off-record’, as a HUMAN being, journalists should not break what is an informal/unspoken contract of confidentiality between two people on the same side. It’s grossly unfair to people who are involved in it, and it’s also irresponsible because they will begin to resent journalists in their midst, and actually give them cause to kick out journalists… Then what would happen? We wouldn’t know anything.
For me, I have noticed people are extremely sensitive about this, especially in an age where so much press IS made up… They have a right to be. And as journalists, or practising journalists, or observers… I think we have a duty to be mindful of this sensitivity.
Comment by Soph — Thu 10 Feb @ 4:15 pm
I’m not sure that I agree with this, particularly #4. Ultimately these rules essentially say “if you have a job as a journalist, you cannot ever be a real part of the left”. You’ve excluded these people from decision making, etc. That’s a terrible attitude to take to any worker.
I don’t think Laurie’s case is really as problematic as you think to the whole idea of being a left-wing journalist who also participates in activism.. Really, the problems you seem to have with Laurie’s piece seem to be that she misquoted you, embellished details, and that she has a different analysis of the movement to you.
The first two are easy to deal with. They are bad journalism. A good journalist wouldn’t misquote you, and a good journalist would stick to the facts. I’m happy to subscribe to an ethics code that precludes misquoting and sticking to the facts, as are all members of the NUJ. If someone breaks that, that’s bad. I don’t know whether Laurie did or not, but if she did then she “did a bad”.
The third thing, about having a different analysis, is not really a problem exclusive to journalism. To be honest, I actually agree with you on analysis – I think Laurie’s generational “old left” narrative is a bit rubbish http://theredrock.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/five-tory-“cuts”-that-will-actually-cost-money/ (although I like a lot of her writing) But lots of people have bad analyses, and many of them are part of the current social movement. I don’t doubt that there are many people who are paid up students with no labour commitments who spent weeks at the occupation who share Laurie’s analysis. I think that’s good. Plurality of viewpoint is not in itself a problem.
You do argue that Laurie characterising her views as an objective account when it’s really her opinion is problematic. I do agree in that I think that an objective journalism is about as possible as a value-free social science (it’s not possible at all) but I think this is a wider issue for journalism as a whole, rather than being specific to this.
Part of it comes down the reader; when people read an article they need to understand that it always has a viewpoint and cannot be objective. I don’t think Laurie would deny that the piece was coloured by her opinion, but there’s not point in her constantly reminding people of this, because it’s obvious that anything she writes is exactly that. She may have painted a picture that you don’t recognise, but she’s waiting to be proved wrong by argument (as I think you did rather well in the first two pieces) rather than by restricting her ability to operate as a journalist.
I’m a socialist first, and a journalist second. I want to work in journalism specifically because of my political beliefs; because I want to see if I could fix some of the terrible coverage out there. I don’t doubt that Laurie Penny takes a similar view; after all she started as a blogger. She’s trying to make a contribution with her skillset. We probably won’t be successful, I’m of the view that the problem is largely systemic and that the actions of individuals can only go so far.
But I think you’re being unfair in characterising her writing about the movement for NS as being qualitatively different to someone writing about it on their blog (e.g. you). The real difference is that she has a bigger audience. Now, with that comes greater responsibility, because people will listen to what she says. She needs to be careful with fact checking and probably rethink her analysis. But I don’t see there being a fundamental problem with her being part of the movement and then writing about it, any more than I think there’s a problem with you doing it, any blog doing it, or the any number of Guardian CiF articles written by people from the radical left existing. Otherwise I’ll cry, because I want to do activism, and having a choice I made to try to make a bigger contribution to to activism preclude me from doing any at all will be a real kick in the balls.
Comment by Jon — Fri 11 Feb @ 11:08 am
Interesting post as this is something I’ve grappled with myself on numerous occasions, just as Soph also commented above.
I graduated with a degree in journalism in 2008 and have since been blogging and reporting on politics, particularly activism. I don’t really have any desire to pursue a career in journalism though. Well, I don’t think so anyway, and certainly not for any of the mainstream media organisations.
However, I do want to devote my life to using media in some way, shape or form, and as somebody who would describe themselves as radical politically, I also see my media skills as something to contribute to the numerous ongoing political struggles. Whereas some people are quite capable of scaling buildings and dropping banners, my skillset lies within using media.
Herein lies the problem, because when I take part in a protest or climate camp, I’m never too sure how far to get involved. I still feel like there’s a dichotomy between reporting and participating, even though the issues at stake are ones I hold very dear to my heart. I felt this acutely when I travelled to Copenhagen for the climate change summit and was being regularly targeted by police kettles. Do I stay within the kettle with my comrades, or maintain my mobility from outside and my ability to report. On the spot I was often confused about my role in the protests.
I think this is particularly blurred by the whole concept of citizen journalists too, in that everyone can report on what they see and do. Defining journalists, for the matters of occupations and such like, can be quite difficult.
It’s something I’m still mulling over, how exactly to approach such occasions, but I think as Soph states it essentially comes down to sensitivity and a respect for those taking part.
Comment by Jamie Potter — Sun 13 Feb @ 4:25 pm
[...] from the Really Free School on Resonance FM le cool london Student as Producer Journalim, Ethics and the movement Free – Pierce Penniless LRB Blog – ‘freeskool iz not a zoo’ Dougalds [...]
Pingback by Really Free School » Blog Archive » Summary of Really Free School so far! — Wed 16 Feb @ 11:50 am
[...] a rock ‘n roll time at Jeff Beck party, BenSix on the laziest post ever published, Sofie on journalism, ethics and the movement, Hannah on victim blaming, Carl on saving local open spaces (nice pix too), Phil’s not [...]
Pingback by Carnival of Socialism « Harpymarx — Wed 02 Mar @ 11:13 pm