 |
 |
There should be space in this forum for both ‘nice’ comment and robust political debate.
Going back to my discussion of the Mail newsroom, another interesting thing to emerge from engagement with NUJ chapel members is that the majority of staff journalists there do not agree with the political line take by the editor and proprietor.
We therefore come back to the claim that the Daily Mail is a purveyor of hate. An editorial slant that in some cases is borderline fascist would seem to suggest that the Mail does on occasion incite hate, or at least actively discriminates against vulnerable groups and individuals. At the same time, however, we are confident that the majority of journalists working for the Mail are not right-wing nutters. So what is going on?
On another positive note, let us take the specific example of the Mail’s coverage of transgender people and issues, which used to be downright demonising, but has since improved considerably.
A few years ago, I wrote the NUJ guidelines on the reporting on transgender people and issues. In drafting these guidelines, we – Equality Council and Ethics Council – drew on expert evidence from across the board. We consulted medical opinion as well as support and advocacy groups, and the result was a professionally-presented case for humane, discrimination-free reporting. The guidelines seem to have an immediate effect, including at the Mail. From the perspective of the NUJ, this provided further evidence as to the positive influence of collective action by workers who may find themselves in conflict with management agendas.
When it comes to science coverage, the Mail appears to carry a lot of material, but very little of it is original, in-house copy. Freelancers are occasionally commissioned to write opinion pieces and pseudo-blogs, but most of the reporting is taken from agency wires.
Should professional science journalists and science communicators write for the Mail? If you agree with the paper’s ideology, there is no question, and this is not necessarily one of scruples. But where to draw the line if you disagree? Should you refrain from critical comment, lest it damage your chances of writing gigs from the Mail?
Francis
--
Dr Francis Sedgemore
journalist, writer and recovering physicist
telephone: +44 7840 191336
website: sedgemore.com
twitter: @hesgen
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul G Raven
Sent: Wednesday 17 May 2017 23:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PSCI-COM]
When the Mail starts operating on that principle, I'll let it go.
Grade A sanctimony, though. Good work!
P
On 17 May 2017 22:13, "Jerry Stone" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: