Is blogging journalism?
I think the answer is 'yes' and 'no' and 'it doesn't matter whether it is or not', kind of in that order, but first let me explain what all this is about. I noticed a somewhat outraged piece from the Bristol Blogger the other day about comments made on the Bristol NUJ website, and then went on to read the comments beneath it. I don't really want to wade into that, but I can't leave it alone either, because it infuriates me. And I am also a blogger based in Bristol.
First, the NUJ is plain dumb wrong and outdated to imagine that they can only accept members on the basis of what proportion of their income is derived from journalism - claiming it keeps out 'hobbyists' and keeps in 'professionals'. By that staggeringly flawed logic, Melanie Phillips would be welcomed with open arms despite her fact-free rants which often run entirely contrary to the truth - by dint of the fact some massive corporation is happy to pay her to write her drivel - yet some decent, hardworking blogger working with primary sources, doing impeccable research and attempting to tell the truth, rather than spout misleading polemic, is kept out because they haven't taken payment from an anti-union corporation. Do you see how this doesn't quite work?
I'll give you a real example. Look at the front page of today's Daily Express, a national newspaper:
Who knew? Who knew that breakfast was good for you? Why haven't we been told this before? What a startling revelation! I'm surprised that media outlets around the world haven't picked up on this stunning story - eating breakfast is good for you - nay, it's the 'secret' to being healthy. A story which, when you read it, has no research other than large sections of a press release copied and pasted and a quote from a nutritionist, who is delighted to extol the virtues of breakfast cereals. You'll see that the article is rather similar to this one, also published today. So not exactly deep digging from the Express to uncover that, was it?
What of the Express's other source, 'independent nutritonist' Lynne Garton? Well, look at her personal profile and you'll see she is:
Nutrition consultant for the Wholegrain for Health Campaign; responsible for communicating the health benefits of whole grains through consumer media.
Ah. I see. She also puts together content for Nestle's "Whole Grain" website. Now there's nothing wrong with that of course but here's someone who's being billed by the paper as an 'independent nutrionist'. Perhaps not so independent, if a lot of your time is spent promoting wholegrain cereals for huge corporations?
So, the journalist who didn't spot that (or did, and couldn't care less) would be welcomed into the NUJ quite willingly because although they're simply copying big chunks of press releases - they got paid for doing so.
Compare the Express's 'Ooh, aren't cereals good?' story to the blogger Unity, who over at Liberal Conspiracy is doing a stellar series of posts - unpaid - about the truth about immigration, exploding the myths created by those paid journalists, who'd be welcomed into the NUJ, who regularly mislead, tell lies and distort the true picture as regards immigration. Anyone who thinks bloggers shouldn't be called journalists should read it - look at the primary source information, the research, the hard work that's gone into that.
Which one would you prefer to be called a journalist? Someone who C&Vs press releases and rings up rentaquotes to put together tediously banal stories that tell us nothing except 'please buy cereals', but who gets paid; or someone who works hard researching and writing pieces on important issues, because they believe in it, because so many paid journalists have told lie after lie after lie regarding the subject in question?
But then there's another sense in which bloggers aren't journalists. When you're not getting paid, you can write what you like, when you like. There's no need to 'come up with a story' when there isn't one. There's no-one telling you to write something you don't believe in. There's no-one telling you to write something a certain way, because that's how they see the story and they don't care what you think, or what you might uncover. In that sense, bloggers aren't journalists.
My argument, though, is that it doesn't matter how you define a journalist. Anyone is capable of producing good journalism and incisive writing - some may not like it, but that's the truth. Good journalism happens where it happens; it may happen in a corporate environment by paid reporters; it may happen elsewhere, by 'hobbyists' who happen to see the story first, and write about it first, or write about those things that don't float the boat of the mainstream media. Journalism isn't just about research and news, either; it's also about opinion and argument. That has always been the case and it always will, and it's totally disingenuous to imagine otherwise.
And yes, some bloggers have spelling mistakes - God knows I make enough - and some may get things wrong occasionally. What you'll find with bloggers is that on the whole we're happy to engage with our readership, no matter how aggressive they are (up to a point) and happy to correct when things go wrong rather than scuttle under the stone of the self-serving PCC, designed to protect journalists from real scrutiny. That's the nature of the medium and it's important to get it right. And yes, we swear, just like those pros in the beloved Guardian who do it every week. And yes, some of us are anonymous - not just the NightJacks of this world, who had to do it for obvious reasons, but the rest of us who would be accused, wrongly, of wasting work time on our blogs if we wrote under our real names, and just don't fancy the hassle of doing it as ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that - if you want to get rid of pseudonymous authors then you'll strike out some of the master works of literature, let alone we mere mortals.
I think the answer is this: bloggers can be journalists. Journalists can be bloggers. Good journalism can come from all sources, both amateur and professional. In the end, the readers will decide whether we're good or not, not us. I think the NUJ's attitude comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what blogs are, particularly political blogs, and that's disappointing, as someone who reads both the dead-tree press, watches the news, listens to the radio *and* reads blogs. There's a hell of a lot of good writing out there that isn't produced for someone willing to make a profit; it's about time the NUJ woke up to it. And if you don't want us, it doesn't matter, because we're coming anyway, and we can succeed with you or without you.
*update* With regards to the cereal/Express aspect of this post, Tabloid Watch has done some sterling work. Now I'm afraid they haven't been paid so you might want to disregard everything you've done and not regard it as proper fact-checking, but have a look at the site if you like. It's really rather good.
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
November 28th, 2009 - 11:06
Excellent stuff. And as for the spelling, here's the sordid truth: journalists are, on the whole, no better at spelling than bloggers, but they usually have subs to give their stuff a once-over.
November 28th, 2009 - 12:31
The thing is, being a member of the NUJ is no benchmark of the quality of that person's output. Likewise, being a member of the NUJ is no arbiter of truth, decency and high moral values (see Jan Moir).
Modern journalism has changed from the industry of old.
Whereas journalists used to spend hours, and even days, digging, researching and validating facts, modern journalists – in pursuit of their daily bread (man) – tend to be desk-bound pixel-addicts who are focussed on quantitative rather than qualitative output.
And that, truthfully, is why the industry is not keen on bloggers gaining recognition. The NUJ is a trade union, it exists to protect the interests of its members.
The logic here is inescapable.
November 28th, 2009 - 13:31
I'd say the vast majority of blogging isn't journalism. But sites like this and even Guido Fawkes, ones that bother to go out and find things out rather than just spouting their own opinions constantly, are, in my opinion.
November 28th, 2009 - 13:33
Nicely written. The NUJ are obviously retards.
November 28th, 2009 - 13:55
The nuj is a union for professionals. The Daily Express hack who did the breakfast piece has been ltirning up day after day and could mp doubt turn their hand to any story on any topic. And the Express is a cheap target – it's aiming at its readers not you. Professional bloggers could apply to join the nuj I expect. But don't mistake full and parttime stuff
November 28th, 2009 - 13:59
Brennig wrote: "The thing is, being a member of the NUJ is no benchmark of the quality of that person's output. Likewise, being a member of the NUJ is no arbiter of truth, decency and high moral values (see Jan Moir).
Modern journalism has changed from the industry of old."
There it is! That's the qualifier right there.
It's probably fair to say that all jobbing tabloid journos are a member of some union or another, and you can't trust their outpourings any more than you can their desire to spin a prejudicial 'story' involving immigration, tits, or royalty – or preferably all three.
November 28th, 2009 - 15:01
Charles, then I presume the NUJ is going to kick out all its student members immediately, if it's just for professionals only. The Express might be a 'cheap target' because it is indeed one of the worst newspapers in the history of the world, but it's ridiculous to say I can't talk about it because it's aimed at someone else. That would be like me saying "I didn't intend for you to read this post, so you're not allowed to comment on it".
November 28th, 2009 - 15:22
It's a fair point in some respects. I remember the first trade show I went to that had separate press badges for 'Press' and 'Bloggers' and wondered how they could possibly distinguish between the two.
But from the NUJ's point of view, it's not and never has been supposed to be an arbiter of quality. Apart from handling employer/employee relations (which bloggers don't have, therefore there's an argument they don't need to unionise) they're also the gateway to a press card. The current line – ie. not issuing them to unpaid bloggers' isn't perfect, but at the same time it took me long enough to get my registration sorted as a professional freelance journalist – who does nothing else – because they're under-resourced in the credential qualification department. I doubt they could cope with sorting out the 'real' journalists from the 'amateur' if the blanket treatment of bloggers was lifted.
However, I would say to bloggers who are disgruntled and want in, if you want membership – and there are a few perks beyond a discount on Apple gear – your best bet would be to actually go along to a local chapter and take part in union activity. You know, like the good old days. Get people to second your application. Don't just rely on sending off a form.
The above with the caveat that I have no idea if it would work, but suspect it's worth trying.
November 28th, 2009 - 17:33
I think it's fair to say that there are journos who blog; as no way can all blogger be considered journos.
November 28th, 2009 - 18:50
I can't help wondering what unpaid bloggers could possibly have to gain from being in a trade union? Which, as the title suggests, is a union for tradespeople, not a social society. The NUJ's remit includes things like negotiating better employment contracts, negotiating deals for people who are being made redundant, helping freelancers with pay and copyright problems… I don't know that they could actually deliver much to unpaid bloggers in return for their money so would it really be fair to take it?
If it's a press card that you're after, I do personally think there's a difference between an established outlet and someone's blog, and if you start handing out press cards to bloggers then how is anyone supposed to differentiate? If it's legal protection you're after, on the other hand, can I suggest that bloggers who fancy a piece of the NUJ's legal cover should buy a copy of McNae and do some legal training. Because many blogs fail to adhere to basic legals (so do many papers, but that will often be an informed decision, perhaps made with assistance from the duty lawyer, from an organisation that can afford to defend itself). This blog entry is a perfect example, actually.
First off, your comments about Melanie Phillips are legally dubious. You have made the error of making a sweeping generalisation: you imply that absolutely everything she writes is a "fact-free rant". You probably can't stand that statement up (it would only take one piece that isn't a "fact-free rant" to prove you wrong) and should also have given her right of reply in case you needed to claim Reynolds later.
Secondly, the nutritionist. You say the Express newspaper's digging wasn't deep. How deep was yours before you wrote this blog entry? Do you know for sure who has and hasn't paid her? Do you know for sure if her comments were independent ones adopted by the campaign or if she was specifically paid to make them? Did you ask her?
Also, when you slag off journalists who don't report on the truth, I presume you make this statement with the understanding that they are often bound by reporting restrictions – which most bloggers won't receive. You may not realise why something is being kept out of the press.
Anyway, back to the main point, which is that any trade union is absolutely right to accept members on the basis of their participation in that trade. The NUJ is for paid journalists because it is a trade union and thus deals with employment relations.
November 28th, 2009 - 19:19
Anne, I don't want a press card, no. And no, my comments about Melanie Phillips are not legally dubious at all. Since when do I need to give her the right of reply in a polemical piece? Have you ever read anything she has ever written? Since when did she do it? I didn't say everything was a fact-free rant, just that she writes fact-free rants. Have a look at the words before you get on your high horse next time.
You should know, being so well informed, on the subject of Phillips, that the PCC decided that when she stated in one of her pieces that 'the fact is children fare better with married parents' without any evidence to back it up, that no-one could possibly take it as being a fact.
Could you give me a list of the 'reporting restrictions' that tell reporters to tell lies about immigration, for example, in direct contradiction of the facts. Is that another 'big newspaper' thing that bloggers don't understand? Or are bloggers like me and many others justified in calling out the dead-tree press for these lies and misleading statements? I am well aware that reporting restrictions exist on some issues, but not on others. Not on the issues that I have written about here.
As regards the nutrionist you are telling me off for doing slightly more research than a paid Express journalist, which is a little odd. But you're wrong again. Where did I say that she was being paid by Nestle? I don't think I did. I merely wondered whether someone who had worked so closely with a cereal company could be considered entirely 'independent', as they were portrayed. I think that's a perfectly legitimate question to answer. The 'right of reply' with a blog is in the comments and if you look back in the archives of this blog, or indeed any other, you will see many occasions on which I and others have been happy to clarify points on the basis of new information. Compare that, if you like, to the Daily Mail's story by Sue Reid this week in which new information based on a hospital quote was tacked onto the end of the story without changing the (now largely discredited by it) assumptions made above. They got paid for that and broadcast it to a far wider audience than my blog. Why aren't you criticising them instead of me, in your search for accurate journalism? Or is it just a case of them being on the right side of the fence?
Again, try reading my words if you want to criticise me. They tend to be a good starting point for analysing what someone has written.
xx
November 28th, 2009 - 19:29
Your comments could be considered as being legally dubious under UK law, whatever kind of piece you are writing, because the piece is being published in the UK and UK law thus applies. You need to give her right of reply if – and, to be fair, only if – you want to be able to claim Reynolds, as I said.
You implied that everything she writes is a fact-free rant because you made a generalised, sweeping statement. As someone who has never read anything that she has written, I now have a belief about her that may or may not be true. What the PCC decided about one of her pieces is beside the point. The point I was trying to make to you is that a basic understanding of media law will equip bloggers with the ability to differentiate between what is and isn't legally dubious, and many apparently lack this right now.
Your blog entry is legally dubious, I'm afraid. If you disagree, that's up to you.
No, I don't think reporting restrictions tell reporters to lie about immigration. Unfortunately, certain papers have their own agendas which I am not for one minute justifying. I am simply saying that the notion that any newspaper reporter is free to write what they want is not true, as you recognise in this blog.
Bloggers are very much justified in calling out the press. I don't dispute that for a second. But I do think there is sometimes a rather naive viewpoint about what reporters should and can do.
As for the nutritionist, you're making assumptions about why they made those comments and who paid them so yes, you should have got right of reply, or at least checked the facts. I don't know who paid them, but I'm not writing about it, you are.
I don't think the fact that someone else warrants criticism is really a valid argument, here – I was merely asking you if you thought bloggers should benefit from the NUJ's legal protection, because many do not demonstrate a basic understanding of media law.
I have read your words. If I was subbing them (I have done subbing/production for several national papers) I would have pulled up these points and asked for clarification. I would have wanted to make some subtle changes to your statements about Phillips and got the exact skinny on the nutritionist.
If you disagree, that's up to you. I'm just trying to make the point that bloggers seem to want to benefit from the NUJ without any real comprehension of what being a member actually involves or what benefits they may or may not be able to get out of it.
November 28th, 2009 - 19:40
Ha. Oh Anne, you're being disingenuous at best. Do those paid to promote a class of processed food products – say, those sold by the wholegrain cereal industry – count as independent commentators on this topic? If you asked her, would she say "Fair cop, I'm a corporate shill", or "Wholegrain cereals are ace!" How preposterous to think such a person could be given the benefit of the doubt over independence.
There is substantial evidence that processed breakfast cereals are NOT healthy but do in fact exacerbate metabolic disorders, because of their effect on insulin. I nearly posted some BMJ links, but you don't care about all that. Point is: where science is not unanimous, someone plugging a certain viewpoint for cash is fairly unconvincing as an independent expert. It's doublethink to insist it's valid.
November 28th, 2009 - 19:57
Anne appears to live in some weird country whose libel laws are actually useful and workable to people who aren't billionaires.
Where is this place?
November 28th, 2009 - 20:17
Actually, Anne lives in some weird country where journalists are expected to understand libel law.
My point – which you have ignored – was to suggest that if bloggers want to become NUJ members, perhaps they should also try to understand, and adhere to, media law, because many don't, while others simply don't consider it a necessity or a priority. I don't claim to know if X or Y person deserves the benefit of the doubt – I know what you needed to do, and say, to be able to claim Reynolds. I take it you know what Reynolds is?
November 28th, 2009 - 20:53
Anne, for as long as you yourself display a lack of understanding of what is legal and what is not in your own articles, I would suggest that you refrain from offering advice on legal matters elsewhere.
November 28th, 2009 - 21:07
"You implied that everything she writes is a fact-free rant because you made a generalised, sweeping statement."
He stated "… Melanie Phillips would be welcome despite her fact-free rants which often run entirely contrary to the truth…" Is it me or does this mean "at least some of her pieces are fact-free rants." It's a general statement insofar as it is non-specific. It is not sweeping, however, i.e. it does not make a statement about every single thing she has ever written. Surely you can see this.
On the subject of the nutritionist, you reiterate that Anton makes "assumptions about why they made those comments and why they were paid" – he has already pointed out that he merely questions whether she could be accurately described as "independent." I fail to see him do anything else. Perhaps you should quote directly if you disagree?
The rest of your response I find mostly too general and slightly boastful and a tiny bit patronising.
November 28th, 2009 - 21:11
Surely the problem here isn't that bloggers can't be members of the NUJ? Surely the problem is two-fold: that the allocation of press-badges has been entrusted to a trade union, and that paper journalism is shite.
As for the legal protection, might it not be better, or at least about as good, for bloggers to form some kind of mutual legal fund?
November 28th, 2009 - 21:27
Well, to be fair, a lot of card-carrying 'journalists' haven't studied and don't fully understand media law either. But because they're published in the 'press' they're entitled to membership of the NUJ.
In these more modern times there are a lot of journalists who have more of their stuff read online than anywhere else, and a lot of bloggers who cross over into the print medium.
It does seem a little unreasonable that professional bloggers should be denied support because they're not seen to be in a 'trade'. And how would this work in practice? Should it mean that the words Ben Goldacre writes in the Guardian should be afforded legal support by the NUJ but the stuff he writes on his site shouldn't?
I think it's somewhat snooty to suggest there's much of a difference between 'journalists' and professional bloggers, and very outdated. It definitely needs looking at. Perhaps something for the new editor of The Journalist to address?
November 28th, 2009 - 22:34
Anne:
You exemplify everything that is wrong with journalism. If you ever wonder why newspaper revenues are falling year on year, just look in the mirror.
November 28th, 2009 - 22:40
I may need to remind myself of UK libel law.
But why would a blogger want to claim a Reynolds defence to libel when discussing their views of a columnist (with all the requirements that that defence entails).
Surely Anton could claim a defence of fair comment if a defamation suit was launched? His opinion seems honestly held and based on true facts, no?
The chances of a blogger claiming Reynolds seems slim to me: "Hi, is that Melanie Philips? It's some guy with a blog here. I'd like a comment about … hello? Hello?"
November 29th, 2009 - 01:12
First things first: Anne is talking rubbish about libel. There's a clear defence of fair comment here. It's a critique.
Second: The NUJ is a traditional Trade Union, but it's also got a code of conduct. Given that the PCC is so spineless, it's useful to have a semi-official set of "rules" to follow, even if they appear to be broken daily by some publications.
But third: It's not the General Council of Journalists. You can't be struck off. As Andrew Marr puts it, journalism is not a profession because it has no professional standards.
and fourth: you don't have to be in the NUJ to get "a press card". Employers can sort them out by negotiating with Scotland Yard (who still supply them, I think). Even so, the only places that my press card has granted me privileged access have been the pavement opposite 10 Downing Street, and the press benches of the Old Bailey. You can easily, easily be a journalist without one.
The NUJ ought to welcome anyone who practises journalism of any kind. My union has some brilliantly hard-working, job-saving reps whom I admire greatly. But it's also packed with dinosaurs who still talk about "internet blogs" and other such out of date guff. They're not bothered about the way the news industry and the culture of journalism is changing. Even worse, they use the NUJ as a political platform to do irrelevant stuff like boycotting Israel etc. I know: I work with a few of them.
The NUJ should allow anyone who wants to join to do so. Why would any organisation reject the offer of more than twenty quid a month from any individual?
It should also lead what — using a horrible cliche — I am going to have to call a "national debate", not about how people consume news (paywalls and falling circulations and all that) but what they actually get served up every day by the news media. As Anton points out, there's a hell of a lot of shit out there, and perhaps the NUJ should start to demand some professional standards from media companies.
November 29th, 2009 - 07:29
What kind of loser blogger would want to join the NUJ?
November 29th, 2009 - 09:55
To Guido: I must say I'm starting to agree with you on that.
November 29th, 2009 - 14:58
Bloggers: the only truly independent modern journalists.
Don't join or start a union, you don't need either the protection or the red tape.
@Anne: you write without questioning whether the status quo of libel law is a Good Thing, why is that? And why are you critiquing Anton's views on Mel without doing the most basic research yourself? It sums up the elitist paper-journo approach that you didn't think you needed to in order to comment in depth about his coverage of her.
November 30th, 2009 - 11:24
To Christina trying to get a comment through: Try splitting it up into smaller entries, that's the only thing I can think of. Hope this helps.
November 30th, 2009 - 15:26
This is just another in a long list of brilliant posts. I have already started promoting this blog on my own blog and podcasts. Look forward to every new post…
December 1st, 2009 - 00:57
Perhaps slightly tangential, but a comment on the (US) MSM avoiding the crux and instead opting for the collateral, personal and peripheral:
The Mainstream Media: In a Horse Race to Irrelevancy?
December 1st, 2009 - 09:33
I would add my two penneth, but I got a bit excited and it got a bit long: http://bit.ly/6uwXdb
December 1st, 2009 - 23:51
There's an awful lot of nonsense above. The first, and most important point, is that the NUJ does accept bloggers as members. There are professional bloggers, in the sense that they are paid to blog, and are accepted into membership – http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/530749.php .
The second point is that the original posting took my words completely out of context. I said that the origin of the 50% rule was to keep out hobbyists. I made the point that things had changed since with the introduction of Indymedia and blogging. The hobbyists I referred to were the kind of people who used to offer to write up a football match for the local paper to get free tickets, depriving sports journalists of work. They regularly applied for NUJ membership to get a press card and the rule was to stop just such people from joining. As I pointed out on the Bristol Blogger site, that rule is something we're looking at and would welcome suggestions. In the meantime, as I pointed out there and on the Bristol NUJ site, unpaid bloggers can apply for Associate Membership.
Further, the NUJ does not recruit people based on the quality of what they write, but as an organisation we do try to impose standards on the industry. Not every professional journalist is a member of the union, unfortunately, would that they were. Members can complain formally within the union when another member breaches the NUJ's Code of Conduct, a code of journalistic standards more strict than the PCC's own – http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=174.
You take an easy pot-shot at the Express, clearly unaware that journalists there have no control over what their editors decide to do with their copy. The situation there got so bad in 2004 that the NUJ Chapel reported their own paper to the PCC – http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=24921 (to no avail, because the PCC is a fig leaf).
Finally, on the press card, not every NUJ member gets one. Only newsgathers. Secondly, the NUJ is what's called a gatekeeper for the card, in effect licensed by the authorities who recognised it, to give it to professional newsgatherers. The NUJ's rules about membership are one of the reasons we're a gatekeeper and we have to ensure that any changes to our rules are consistent with that status.
December 8th, 2009 - 09:29
Donnacha: So if Express journalists have no control over what they write, why should they be called journalists or regarded as professionals?
Cheers for the patronising comment, though.
December 8th, 2009 - 10:41
Make up your mind – are you blogging or are you simply tubthumping? Because blogging is about conversation, it's about engagement. If you want to regard me, someone with more knowledge on the subject than you, as patronising when I post information, that's up to you. But then, you're not engaging in a conversation or engaging, you're just throwing stones.
And, to answer the question (which reveals you know little about how the media actually works), journalists don't control how their copy appears in print. Subs and editors do that.
December 8th, 2009 - 10:56
There you go again, patronising. You have more knowledge than me – do you? How do you know? Do you know me? Have you met me? No, you haven't, and you don't, but you just assume, with a lofty arrogance which no doubt you think is intelligence and wisdom, that you know so much more about blogging than I do.
But let me tell you this. I've read your blog and I don't really think much of it, to be quite frank. You can say you know much more than me, but you don't seem to know more about writing an interesting blog. I might just be a 'tubthumper' in your brilliant successful and wonderfully creative eyes, but guess what? I have a lot of readers who like what I do, and enjoy reading it, and sneery little snipes from you aren't going to stop that. And yes I do engage with my readers, as you would see from this thread, and many others with dozens of comments on them I've published on other days. I enjoy engaging with readers – just not the ones who decide somehow that they're so much better than me and so much more important, and know so much more. Because you don't.
The spectacular arrogance of your post, in assuming I don't know what sub-editors or editors are, marks you out as not just a twit, but a fool as well. I am well aware of how the mainstream media work, thank you very much. And the longer they have arrogant people like you working for it, the quicker it will die. And rightly so.
You accuse me of 'stone throwing' but it seems to me you've done plenty of that yourself.
No wonder people don't want to be members of the NUJ. With people like you involved, it would put anyone with a brain off sending in their subs.
December 8th, 2009 - 12:29
Impressive.
OK, now we've got all the ad hominem bollocks from you two love-birds out of the way, any chance we might get back on topic?
By all means argue the toss about writing, in all its varied formats – print media or on-line -, but watching you two in a pissing contest is not what the readers here read here for.
Appreciate it.
December 9th, 2009 - 01:25
How do I know more about internal NUJ issues? 10 years as an active member and now Vice President. Nothing patronising about that, when you're elected to the NEC, you can say you know more. Now, if you don't want experts to engage with you and point out issues, fine, switch off the commenting function. If you do…
And, thanks for the feedback on my blog, sorry to hear you don't like it. I'm not an active blogger – as I think the "Random musings" bit tries to make clear – but it's not my main avenue of communication. I do that in person.
@Cosmic Navel Lint – back to the core issue – much of the media is, unfortunately, full of shit. The NUJ knows this and is actively trying to improve the situation. Taking pot-shots at the NUJ for something we don't control is unfair and counter-productive. 'Nuff said.
December 9th, 2009 - 10:00
I wasn't saying you don't know more about specific NUJ issues, which I'm sure you do, but about blogging, which you don't.
December 9th, 2009 - 11:48
I give up, this is pointless.
March 5th, 2010 - 03:10
i honestly enjoy your posting type, very exciting,
don’t give up as well as keep creating since it simply just nicely to follow it.
impatient to see alot more of your current stories, enjoy your day!
March 12th, 2010 - 11:04
Very well written, well done