It was a pretty busy day on Saturday, where I also spoke at the National Union of Journalist’s Black Members Council on the subject of bullying in the media, alongside the union’s general-secretary Michelle Stanistreet.
The NUJ, and Michelle, have been forthright in raising the issue of bullying as part of the Leveson debate, and recently launched a new booklet for journalists explaining their rights when it comes to being treated fairly.
Sadly bullying has long been endemic in the media, however we must draw that red line of where acceptable direct language in a high pressure environment stops and unacceptable bullying starts. It is essential this red line is drawn because, as the NUJ have pointed out, bullying costs people’s careers and health.
The fact that there was a culture of bullying at the News of the World is connected, in my view, to the unethical practices that led to the closure of the paper. Who dare object to phone tapping when raising your voice could mean losing your job?
As well as having the freedom to raise concerns about the unethical behavior of others, journalists also need to feel safe refusing to cover a particular story if the story is unethical or just plain bogus. The NUJ have argued for a Conscience Clause to cover this. Lord Leveson recommended that upholding the code of conduct should not bring disciplinary action or result in any determent to a journalists’ career.
But I fear we will need stronger protection to make a difference in this area. The best safeguard is a change in culture, and this particular recommendation is unlikely to bring that about.
It’s not just the bad behavior of the boss that’s an issue, but the unethical story they want to cover in the first place and the impact that may have on other people or whole communities, such as people of Muslim faith, who so often find ridiculous stories written about them.
It is sad, but not surprising, that the media have largely ignored the issues of bullying raised in the Leveson inquiry, just as the media ignored what Lord Leveson had to say about discriminatory reporting of asylum seekers and immigrants.
I’ve argued that media regulation must include a right for people to complain if a whole section of society has been attacked unfairly. Most of the made-up stories in the media involve asylum, immigration and Muslims. While there must be a sanction for getting facts wrong, there must be an additional sanction for inventing the whole story. As the Tabloid Watch blog points out, Richard Desmond’s rags are the worst offenders by far.
I’ve worked a lot in the Black media, and most of it is non-unionised. That’s a form of bullying too; the fear that joining the NUJ will bring with it unfair treatment.
The standards we seek to uphold in society must be reflected in the way the media do business. As a past victim of bullying within the industry I know how debilitating it can be, and I’ve seen others bullied to the point they resign and leave.
These are the individual consequences of a management culture that is not getting the best out of anyone; that seeks to rule by fear rather than tap the creativity and talents of their staff. A management culture that wants to churn out a product on low resources to get advertising revenues rather than invest in people so the quality of that product improves.
If papers operate a military-style chain of command how can they safeguard democracy for the rest of us? For me, this style of running papers – broadsheet and tabloid – owes much to the class system. Oxbridge Commanders at the top. Bullying Lieutenants and Majors’ running desks… and foot soldiers from the lower orders ready to get blown out of the paper at a moments’ notice.
And then there’s the ranks of part-time soldiers. Freelancers and shifters who, by nature of their position, are lowly-paid and insecure and can be dropped at any minute. This is where the majority of Black, Asian and other minority ethnic journalists are concentrated.
I believe this whole situation is underpinned by the practice of not recruiting in the normal way. It is hardly surprising that an industry that feels itself to be exempt from the need to advertise vacancies also feels it has license to treat their workers any way they want. Bringing their human resources practices in line with the rest of society does not impinge on the ‘free press’ debate. It simply makes the industry transparent.
I’ve long argued that Equalities Laws should apply to the private sector. That includes the media reporting its’ record on staff diversity.
In an era when the public are buying less and less newspapers isn’t it time the industry reappraised their practices of chewing up and spitting out talent? Instead of Hacking Off their greatest assets – their staff – newspapers should be asking their assets for ideas to halt declining readership. Perhaps valuing people inside the organisation will help the paper become more sensitive to their impact on people on the outside.
The broadcast media are not exempt. Al Jazeera’s decision to uproot their London office to the Middle East is a classic example of an unfettered autocracy where the decisions made place the least importance on the people they employ.
Clearly making the media live in the same world as the rest of society, when it comes to treating staff, doesn’t endanger free speech. Nor does giving staff the right to conscientiously object to something on grounds of ethics.
I wholeheartedly support the NUJ’s position on Leveson and only wish that the industry itself listened more to their own union.
As for the political response; politicians who support more regulation of reporting while ignoring the in-house practices are showing themselves to be popularist rather than objective legislators.
We need to address the cause as well as the symptoms, and that means the media getting its’ house in order when it comes to bullying and treatment of its’ human capital.
By Lester Holloway @brolezholloway
