|
|
|||
Drogheda, NUJPhoto and the National Union of Journalists |
|||
|
This
document has been prepared by the National Visual Journalists Photo list
nvjphoto@nvphoto.co.uk
It may be freely
distributed. Copyright remains with the authors.
The
NVJPhoto email list has no connection whatsoever with the National Union
of Journalists, is in no way sanctioned by the NUJ, is not endorsed by the
NUJ, is not funded by the NUJ. In fact some in the NUJ might prefer
it did not exist at all. Photographers
are often isolated by the nature of their work, and share a common
interest which sets them aside from most NUJ colleagues. The purpose
of this unofficial NVJPhoto list is to maintain lines of communication
between visual journalists and photographers who wish to informally
discuss industry and NUJ issues, but who are no longer able to do so since
closure of the NUJPhoto list server. Membership
is open to whomsoever the list moderators wish to admit. In
practical terms this will mean most of the membership of the now-closed
nujphoto list are eligible. In general terms this will mean professional
photographers who are current union members. For more details see the
membership guidelines.
What
became of the NUJPhoto list? (short version)
The
old NUJPhoto list was voluntarily and unilaterally suspended by its owner,
Pete Jenkins, on 1 August 2007. This followed discussion of the
proposed Drogheda NUJ agreement which included a clause approving the use
of cameras by writers, in exchange for a wage increase and closed shop.
This affected a number of list members directly, yet none had been
consulted. Many more criticised the agreement and the lack of
consultation. A number of list members wrote to the Irish Secretary
Seamus Dooley, who had been one of the main negotiators, and also other
NUJ officials. Dooley thus became aware of considerable opposition
to the agreement he had brokered, emanating from NUJPhoto. The Irish
Executive Council subsequently voted to reject the agreement and referred
it to the NEC. Dooley demanded to be admitted to the NUJPhoto list,
and was refused, partly because he was not a photographer and did not
qualify, and partly because a majority of list members who had expressed
an opinion did not want Dooley on the list. The
list closure was intended to be temporary and was precipitated by
irreconcilable differences between NUJ management, who insisted on the
admission of Seamus Dooley, and the list owner, who was not prepared to
admit him against the wishes of list members. Pete Jenkins felt the
Emergency Committee would have to make their consideration of the Drogheda
agreement on merit, with the list no longer posing a ‘threat’. He
concedes this was a mistake; it made no difference at all and the EC
approved the Drogheda agreement.
It
also made no difference to the EC’s verdict regarding NUJPhoto. Since
then, the NUJ has made it clear that it forbids the recommencement of
NUJPhoto, or of any substitute forum claiming any endorsement or official
NUJ status. Hence this entirely independent and unofficial NVJPhoto list
has now been formed. What
became of the NUJPhoto list (long and bloody version)?
Much
of this story has already been very adequately covered at the Editorial
Photographers UK site, and anyone who needs to know the background is
advised to look to EPUK’s coverage:-
NUJ
photographers oppose Drogheda proposals
http://www.epuk.org/News/639/fury-at-nuj-drogheda-agreement
NUJPhoto
list closes after pressure from NUJ
http://www.epuk.org/News/644/nuj-caught-in-nujphoto-power-struggle
NUJ
Emergency NEC meeting endorses Drogheda deal
http://www.epuk.org/News/647/drogheda-independent-agreement-endorsed-by-nuj
The
NUJ EC statement approving the Drogheda deal
http://www.epuk.org/News/650/the-nujs-statement-in-full
Why
Pete Jenkins closed the NUJPhoto list
http://www.epuk.org/News/652/jenkins-why-i-closed-down-the-nujphoto-list
Some
further coverage may be found at Roy Greenslade’s blog
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greenslade/2007/07/nuj_storm_as_photographers_los.html
The
draft NUJ Drogheda agreement
http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=1815
The
following is a more detailed explanation which we feel NUJ members are
entitled to be made aware of. It contains some private
correspondence reproduced without permission. Unfortunately, this is
essential in order to present a clear account of events and we believe
publication is in the public interest.
Background
The
original NUJPhoto list was established by Pete Jenkins in 2004, initially
as an informal and unofficial mechanism to improve communications between
NUJ photographers, both freelance and staff, and with the aim of improving
communications between photographers and the rest of the union. The
mailing list was not set up to be a ‘virtual chapel’, but a virtual
coffee shop (without the coffee).
Pete
Jenkins purchased the nujphoto.co.uk domain, and with assistance from many
people the list commenced operation with typical mailing list rules
regarding membership eligibility, conduct, confidentiality and liability
of authors for their own posts. As is usual, these rules were
designed to facilitate the safe and effective operation of the list.
Moderators were elected by list members.
In
2005, Pete Jenkins approached the FIC and secured approval that the list
become an ‘official’ NUJ venue in exchange for partial funding to
secure list operation. This was later ratified by the NEC, of which
Pete Jenkins is a member. The Union made no demands beyond
stipulating that the list be run in a proper manner, free of abuse, which
it already was. By
July 2007, list membership exceeded 200, it was strong and vibrant and a
positive contributor to union culture by virtue of allowing NUJ members to
participate. On
6th July Pete Jenkins posted a
report of the NEC meeting he had just attended, which included half a
dozen lines (out of about 300) about the Drogheda agreement, the first
that anyone within NUJPhoto had heard of it. This
generated a debate involving Irish freelances and the photographer
currently contracted to the Drogheda Independent, Sinead Sarsfield, whom
it appears had been deliberately excluded from all previous knowledge of
any agreement. As a result, a number of emails were sent by
individual members to Seamus Dooley, registering objections and comments,
which he had asked for. On
11th July, Dooley reported to the
Irish Executive Council that he had received a large number of emails
expressing concern, and the IEC decided to defer their decision for a
fortnight to give time for wider consultation.
Also on 11th July Dooley first applied to be subscribed to the list. He was sent as standard email outlining the eligibility criteria which he acknowledged might mean he was not eligible : “If that is not possible that is not a problem.” On
20th July Dooley requested
membership of the NUJPhoto list from the list moderators.
“If
issues are to be discussed in relation to Ireland I should be a member.”
This
request was put to the list membership. A 10:1 majority of those who
expressed an opinion were against the idea, and Dooley was refused.
On
27th July, the Irish Executive
Council voted down the draft Drogheda agreement 8 votes to 7, and referred
it to the NEC with a recommendation to reject, & to recommend no
reporters use cameras. On
27th July, Pete Jenkins received
the following forwarded email from Jeremy Dear, General Secretary of the
NUJ. Email addresses have been removed for privacy.
From: Jeremy Dear [-------------------] I am writing to you as chair of the Freelance
Industrial Council in Dear’s
letter made an array of allegations without providing any chance to answer
them; they were presented as assertions of unquestionable guilt. Tim
Dawson was not asked to investigate whether there was any truth to them,
he was asked to ‘resolve the problem’ like some sort of NUJ Luca Brasi.
The clear implication is that Dear wanted Pete Jenkins removed from
control of the list that he owned. To
examine Dear’s assertions and provide some responses which he appears
uninterested in hearing: “It
is simply unacceptable for a member to bar another member in good Barring
Dooley was within the rules of the list, which had been in force from the
lists inception in 2004 as an initially independent service. When
the FIC and NEC subsequently endorsed the list, no objection to the rules
was made then or subsequently, and still has not been. On
11th July Dooley asked to be subscribed to the list. As with all
applications he was sent an email asking for membership details and
stating eligibility for joining NUJPhoto. Dooley realised that he might
not be eligible as he wasn’t a photographer. He wrote to the
moderators,
“If that is not possible
that is not a problem.” Later
on 20th July he changed his
mind, insisting,
“If issues are to be
discussed in relation to Ireland I should be a member.” The
moderators were aware that many Irish members had expressed a reluctance
to be on a list with Seamus Dooley, rightly or wrongly feeling that there
might be difficulties. The moderators (democratically elected) politely
declined his application. The
moderators then took the very democratic decision to ask the list. A
clear majority objected. Given this outcome they reaffirmed their
decision, as is their right as moderators, and according to the list
rules, to not allow the Irish secretary to subscribe. This second
refusal was the reason for Dear’s letter.
It
appears that the General Secretary here just wanted list rules set aside
because he found photographers opposition to Drogheda inconvenient to his
and Dooley’s authority, and they had a requirement to ‘shoot the
messenger’ NUJPhoto, and specifically the list owner, Pete Jenkins, in
order to silence objections.
Plenty
of opposition to the Drogheda draft agreement had been expressed, but that
was legitimate and necessary debate of the issues and implications.
It is fair to say many list members were highly critical of the NUJ
proposal, but no derogatory comments had been written about Dooley and no
complaints received. Had they been, they would have been dealt with
under list rules by the moderators.
Dooley
had been offered the opportunity to present his views for publication on
the list. He did not respond. Also list members had been prompted to read his statement on the
main NUJ website.
There
was absolutely no ‘personal agenda’ and the General Secretary is here
indulging in an ad hominem
attack. List anger and incredulity was spontaneous, not orchestrated
by Pete Jenkins. It was directed at an issue, not a person: the
Drogheda deal, the proposal by our own Union to endorse writers working as
photographers without any consultation of freelance photographers whose
livelihoods would be undermined. This should not really be too much
of a surprise to the General Secretary if he recalls that the NUJ exists
to protect the interests of members rather than eliminate their jobs. Tim
Dawson, Chair of FIC, then approached Pete Jenkins as instructed and made
him aware of the General Secretary’s views. Both the Drogheda
draft and the NUJPhoto issue were apparently to be considered by the
Emergency Committee of the NEC. The effect of Dear’s letter was,
necessarily, to provoke a discussion between Pete Jenkins, whom the letter
had made a personal target, and the moderators, about what to do. Pete
Jenkins then made the personal and unilateral decision to suspend the
list. As he later explained in a lengthy explanation briefly posted
to the home page of http://www.nujphoto.co.uk: “What
was also clear was that bringing up NUJPhoto
at the same time, as Drogheda was a way of blaming photographers, and NUJPhoto
activity for the reason so many NUJ members were unhappy with the
Drogheda agreement as written. Too damn right! I
discussed my situation and that of the list with the moderators.
Clearly the list as privately owned, and moderated by members elected from
the subscribers was not under any union obligation, even though the Freelance
Industrial Council kindly endorsed the list and paid small annual
amounts towards the lists upkeep. Members would not allow the General
Secretary of the National Union
of Journalists to dictate to a private list who might and might not be
allowed to subscribe, most especially as the list members had made it
clear that this person was unwelcome.
The
Background to the discussion
Whilst
all this was going on the NUJ
was embroiled in a heated discussion about the Drogheda
Independent chapel, and an agreement which the NUJ
management in Ireland wanted to endorse, which specifically allowed
writers to carry cameras and do the job that photographer members had
previously been hired to perform. http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=1798
(The
paper had no staff photographers). The
Irish Executive Council had already rejected this agreement as
unacceptable, (the agreement had other sections which were untenable to
union members, let alone the chapel themselves), and had referred it to
the Unions National Executive
Committee. The
General Secretary ordered a meeting of the Emergency
Committee of the NEC to discuss Drogheda, and at the same time discuss
the matter of NUJPhoto (as
already mentioned). Not one moderator of NUJPhoto
was invited to this meeting. As
members discussing union matters on NUJPhoto
was clearly not an ‘emergency’ for the union, what reason could there
be for bringing this up on an Emergency
Committee of the NEC? Some have surmised that NUJPhoto
might take emphasis away from discussion of the Drogheda agreement which
had already been rejected by the Irish
Executive Council - who can tell?. Now
that the decision has been made, we are told that this agreement is
actually to the benefit of Photographers, so we are all relieved. The NUJ
endorses the practice of untrained writers doing the job previously done
by skilled and trained specialist photographers, and fully supports its
photographer members http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=1815
So
what for the future of NUJPhoto?
I
alone made the decision to close down the list to avoid the tarnish of the
General Secretarys' accusations affecting the discussion surrounding the
Drogheda Agreement. I did this without proper consultation with the
moderators and with the best possible motives. I did it under the
most stressful of situations. It
is now clear to me that I was wrong to do this and what makes it worse for
me is that it made no difference. Despite fulfilling the General
Secretarys' request to resolve a situation, not of lay members making,
this made no difference, to the union managements' response. Those
who advised me to stand firm and make no attempt to accede to union
management were correct in their assessment. I can only apologise to
all members for my poor decision and for causing so much anguish.”
This
version was withdrawn from the NUJPhoto
site and
the current, briefer and less provocative version substituted on 4th August. On
6th August Pete Jenkins received
the following letter from John Fray, Assistant General Secretary of the
NUJ. This was the first notification of the outcome of the Emergency
Committee’s deliberations on 2nd
August. Dear Mr. Jenkins, NUJ
PHOTO The
elected Emergency Committee of the NUJ NEC met on 2nd
August 2007 and considered this matter in detail, at some length. At
that meeting, the Committee was informed that NUJ Photo has been closed
down by yourself on 1st August, you being the owner. This
site had been endorsed by the Union in 2005 after an application by you to
the Freelance Industrial Council. The
NEC Emergency Committee is concerned that the site is in direct conflict
with the decision of the NEC. You
are reminded that on receiving the report of the FIC, the site was first
sanctioned by the NEC in July 2005 when the NEC carried a motion stating:
“This NEC reminds all members producing material in the name of the NUJ
that, as representatives of the NUJ, they should ensure their conduct
reflects the standards expected of a national union.” The
Irish Secretary was denied access to the site to respond to misleading and
untruthful statements about himself, the Irish Organiser and the Union. The
NEC Emergency Committee is also concerned that a body operating with the
approval of the union, using the union’s name and its finances under the
auspices of the NUJ was conducted in this way. The
NEC is seriously concerned at these recent developments, especially as you
are a member of the NEC. The
NEC Emergency Committee wishes to make it absolutely clear that it does
not sanction any restarting of NUJ Photo or other similar organisation
which in any way utilises the name, logo or initials or in any other way
may give the impression that it is in any way authorised by the NUJ or
associated with the NUJ. To
do so is expressly forbidden, unless the NEC gives prior express written
approval of any start, restart or continuation. Further,
the Committee requests return of the balance of the funds supplied to NUJ
Photo by the Union since its funds were last forwarded to you. No further
funds are to be provided without prior express written approval by the
NEC. The
Union requires that you return forthwith to me, all NUJ membership names,
addresses and any contact details, these being the property of the NUJ and
permission for use of which by you, and NUJ Photo and any similar site is
withdrawn forthwith by the NUJ. It
now appears that a new site has been started using the name of the NUJ. I
require any reference to the NUJ and its name, logo and initials to be
removed. I
therefore must now require your written undertaking by return of email and
first class post that this new site will be immediately closed, the
original site will not be restarted and no further new site will be
started which in any manner, express or implied may give the impression
that it is in any way associated with or authorised by the NUJ. Yours sincerely, JOHN
FRAY Deputy General Secretary A
detailed reply was made to John Fray on 8th August Wednesday, 08 August 2007 Dear Mr Fray,
I acknowledge your letter dated 6th August 2007. I found the contents rather surprising. I do not understand how the Emergency committee could consider the matter of NUJPhoto in detail as no one connected with the e-mail list including the five moderators and list owner were invited to the meeting, nor were they consulted before hand. Surely, no decisions of note could possibly be made in a democratic way without consulting those directly involved? Perhaps it would be best to address your letter point by point. 'At that meeting, the Committee was informed that NUJ Photo has been closed down by yourself on 1st August, you being the owner.' This is correct. 'This site had been endorsed by the Union in 2005 after an application by you to the Freelance Industrial Council.' This is correct. 'The NEC Emergency Committee is concerned that the site is in direct conflict with the decision of the NEC.' Please explain which NEC decision you are referring to because you have lost me here. 'You are reminded that on receiving the report of the FIC, the site was first sanctioned by the NEC in July 2005 when the NEC carried a motion stating: "This NEC reminds all members producing material in the name of the NUJ that, as representatives of the NUJ, they should ensure their conduct reflects the standards expected of a national union.' I do not need such a reminder. The list operated within appropriate and correct standards, and according to rules set by the moderators and myself which existed at the time of NEC approval. 'The Irish Secretary was denied access to the site to respond to misleading and untruthful statements about himself, the Irish Organiser and the Union.' Please provide details of these alleged misleading and untruthful statements. What are NUJPhoto subscribers claimed to have said? The Irish Secretary was denied membership in the first instance because he did not meet membership criteria, according to the list rules. When asked to reconsider, the further decision not to admit him was referred to the list membership. An overwhelming majority of the list members who responded felt that his presence would inhibit the primary purpose of the list, to enable photographers to communicate with each other. You should understand that the lack of consultation with Irish freelances during the negotiation of the draft Drogheda agreement was pivotal to this conclusion. Moderators did not feel they had any right to overrule this democratic view and nor did I, which led to my unilateral suspension of the list because it was impossible to reconcile the wishes of the members and the demands of the Irish Secretary. 'The NEC Emergency Committee is also concerned that a body operating with the approval of the union, using the union's name and its finances under the auspices of the NUJ was conducted in this way.' In what way? Please be specific about your complaints and I will endeavour to address them. 'The NEC is seriously concerned at these recent developments, especially as you are a member of the NEC.' I too am seriously concerned. NUJPhoto was an invaluable resource for the Union's photographer members. Whilst I suspended it to avoid a union-damaging clash, you appear to have made a number of judgements here without considering that there is a perfectly reasonable and honourable explanation that placed union members' interests first. 'The NEC Emergency Committee wishes to make it absolutely clear that it does not sanction any restarting of NUJ Photo or other similar organisation which in any way utilises the name, logo or initials or in any other way may give the impression that it is in any way authorised by the NUJ or associated with the NUJ.' Noted. That is your right, even if I and many photographers consider it unwise and regrettable. 'To do so is expressly forbidden, unless the NEC gives prior express written approval of any start, restart or continuation.' Noted. 'Further, the Committee requests return of the balance of the funds supplied to NUJ Photo by the Union since its funds were last forwarded to you. No further funds are to be provided without prior express written approval by the NEC.' All funds provided were paid in advance for 1 year's hosting. I do not have custody of any balance. 'The Union requires that you return
forthwith to me, all NUJ membership names, addresses and any contact
details, these being the property of the NUJ and permission for use of which by you, and NUJ Photo and any similar site is withdrawn forthwith by the NUJ.' Please advise which membership names, and the contact details the union supplied and I will of course immediately return the same to you. How would you like them, as an excel document? 'It now appears that a new site has been started using the name of the NUJ. I require any reference to the NUJ and its name, logo and initials to be removed.' Your information is incorrect. No such new site has been started. A placeholder page exists at the www.nujphoto.co.uk as a necessary courtesy to list members, explaining that the list is closed. 'I therefore must now require your written undertaking by return of email and first class post that this new site will be immediately closed, the original site will not be restarted and no further new site will be started which in any manner, express or implied may give the impression that it is in any way associated with or authorised by the NUJ.' Since you require it: the original site will not be restarted by me and no further new site will be started by me which in any manner, express or implied may give the impression that it is in any way associated with or authorised by the NUJ. I cannot of course provide the blanket undertaking you ask for, as phrased, since I cannot give assurances regarding what other people may do. Of course I will endeavour to assist the union once I fully understand what the legitimate concerns are. I look forward to hearing from you Yours sincerely
We
await further developments. What
happens now?
Meanwhile
NUJ photographers still need somewhere we can talk to each other, no
matter how inconvenient the NUJ finds the prospect. So the decision was
taken to start this completely independent NVJPhoto mailing list..
The
moderators would like to emphasise that this fight is not of their making,
and that they would have far preferred to continue the debate within the
NUJ’s approved list. Unfortunately the union's management will not
now permit this. We
believe they are misguided and the debate itself must not be suppressed.
Accusations
of disloyalty and arguments over the rules of a private mailing list are
pure hubris. The moderators and list owner are all longstanding NUJ
members whose commitment to the Union is unquestionable, and Pete Jenkins
in particular has worked tirelessly to further the Union’s aims and
members’ interests. The membership of the list comprised more than
200 photographers who care most about the NUJ. Nobody twisted their
arms to join, they participated out of commitment. This
argument is not about inconvenience and frustration of officials who
believe they are now being sabotaged after 6 months trying to reach
agreement with a difficult employer. Nor is it even about the
self-interest of the few photographers directly affected, nor even all
photographers. It is that we see dangers that the union management
apparently do not yet see. The potential implications extend far
beyond a single local agreement with a small Irish title, extending into
the working lives of photographers and writers, both freelance and staff,
and with major quality implications for reporting in general within the UK
and possibly beyond. What
today looks like a gain to NUJ management, improved pay rates for staff
writers and a closed shop in Drogheda, marks a precedent and watershed for
the NUJ, and a line that once crossed will be impossible to regain.
It is not the authority of NUJ leadership we take issue with, it is their
judgement in this matter. This
is not even slightly a question of technological evolution and
inevitability as Seamus Dooley believes, it is ultimately a battle of cost
and corporate profit vs. public entitlement to quality media.
Quality of reporting is not some luxury consumer item, it is the
distinction between information and propaganda without which democratic
societies cannot exist. Dooley is quite correct that the practice of
reporters carrying cameras is widespread; we cannot stop this, it will
happen anyway. But for the Union to condone it and enshrine it as
best practice is something else. Just because something can happen
and does happen does not mandate the NUJ to negotiate away its principled
guardianship of professional standards.
As
photographers we seem to have a singularly hard time getting the NUJ to
listen to us. The sad thing is that the nature of our journalism is
not valued much by most of the public, and the Union reflects these low
levels of visual literacy. Yet we have spent over a decade in the
front line of trivialisation of the press, of commoditisation of our work,
of aggregation of our intellectual property by large companies, most often
as their wholly-owned asset at the cost of our equity. Our craft is hardly
obsolete as the Irish Secretary asserts, in a world more filled with
photographs than it has ever been. It is simply that very little of the
value ever reaches the people who actually create it. What
has happened is that the economic rug has been stolen from under the feet
of the people who know best and care most about photography. We know
where this road leads because our profession is further along it, and the
NUJ could learn a lot from us. In fact it must because it should be
in no doubt that writers and broadcast journalists are next on the
corporate cost-cutters’ menu. Bloggers and citizen journalists and
podcasters and free PR copy will be exploited to undercut written and
broadcast journalism in exactly the same manner. It is happening
already. Very many publications now use images and copy sourced from
the web at no cost. Trinity Mirror are already planning to extend a
network of local sites whose purpose is to invite and gather free content,
which is then repackaged into advertising-supported free-sheets and posted
through the letterboxes of the very people who created it. This will
undercut and further wreck the viability of the traditional local press.
Does anyone doubt that, given enough free and cheap content, a
national daily free-sheet is a racing certainty? None of this is
going to happen tomorrow or even next week, but it would be unwise to bet
your career on it not happening.
The
NUJ is sleepwalking into the abyss, unless it learns from the mistakes it
has made over photography. If, as Seamus Dooley says, it is simply a
matter that digital cameras allow anyone to take a decent picture, then
how will he respond when publishers argue that possession of a
spellchecker or DVcamera allows anyone to write a decent article or make a
decent broadcast feature? Out there among the millions of bloggers
and streaming video clips is the proof this is coming. Publishers
will grab it all, repackage, brand and sell it to the public, and – just
as with photography – soon enough, hardly anyone will want to pay for it
anymore because professionals are an avoidable expense. The
publishers will still make profits . Their 'caring' about quality is
strictly limited by their duty to their shareholders
and if they can make more
profit by degrading quality, they will. As print media move to the
web and its advertising-driven models, this gradual descent is inevitable.
The NUJ’s attention deficit will not only make most professional
journalists redundant, but even itself. There
is much more to say about all this, and one way or another we will have
this debate. Even if every branch, every official and every member
puts their fingers in their ears, even if every reader, listener and
viewer couldn’t care less so long as it costs them nothing, it is true
anyway, and we have no choice. Professional photographers backs are
already against the wall, but we will not be alone for long. Where the NUJ
is going with Drogheda leads nowhere good: it is an eventual epitaph for
professional journalism.
|
|||