The National Union of Journalists is facing a backlash from members and possibly mass resignations after appearing to back statutory regulation of the press.
General secretary Michelle Stanistreet is giving evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on press standards this afternoon.
In her written submission to the inquiry, she pours cold water on plans for a beefed up Press Complaints Commission to regulate the industry and says “some form of statutory regulation is now inevitable.”
She also says that the union’s experience in the broadcasting sector, which is policed by Ofcom, suggests that “regulation supported by statute is not of itself damaging.”
Michelle’s comments are already provoking a backlash on Twitter from senior journalists.
Journalism professor and former Scotsman editor Tim Luckhurst threatened to tear up his union membership card over the issue.
He tweeted: “If the NUJ backs statutory regulation of the press I shall resign my membership…I hope thousands will join me.”
Croydon Guardian assistant editor Matthew Knowles said: “Has @NUJ committed suicide by calling for statutory regulation of the press? Don’t remember that one going for a vote.”
Earlier today PCC chairman Lord Hunt set out plans for a beefed-up version of the existing watchdog with power to fine newspapers who breach the editor’s code up to £1m.
But inquiry chairman Lord Justice Leveson indicated he was far from convinced by the idea and the NUJ submission appears to heap ridicule on it.
“It is the very structure of the PCC as an industry-fostered self-regulatory body that has led to its failure. Self regulation has been given every possible chance to work in many different forms over the past 40 years and has failed the test every time,” wrote Michelle.
“For the reasons given above, the NUJ does not believe that a rebranding – the PCC Mark 2 that is often referred to – would do anything other than repeat (yet again) all the past mistakes that have been made.
“Whilst the NUJ is hugely disappointed that we have reached this point, despite more than 20 years of campaigning for reform of the PCC and press regulation, we now see it as inevitable that there should be some statutory provision for a new regulator.
“All our experience in broadcasting, including the last eight years with Ofcom, shows that regulation supported by statute is not of itself damaging.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
I am staggered by how completely clueless the NUJ are.
For a union struggling to make ends meet, this could be catastrophic for them. If I hadn’t torn up my membership long ago I’d be doing it now.
Statutory regulation can only be a bad thing for journalism and the freedom of the press.
Unbelievable.
Report this comment
ouch! what an own goal. People were losing faith in the NUJ anyway, but now it faces a bigger struggle then ever
Report this comment
That’s my subs being cancelled when I get home.
Report this comment
Oh, stop throwing your dummies out of the pram. The PCC only has itself to blame. We already know that 70% of the public trust regulated broadcasters but only 20% trust the unregulated press.
Report this comment
How many people threatening to cancel their NUJ subs have actually read the union’s full submission to Leveson? The submission makes it clear that statutory underpinning of regulation is not the same as statutory regulation and the union is calling for a new regulatory body which is free from interference from the state and politicians – and equally independent of the media owners and editors.
Report this comment
Michelle Stanistreet did NOT call for statutory regulation. Tim Luckhurst is being alarmist and silly. What the NUJ is seeking – in similar fashion to the Irish Press Council – is statutory underpinning for a system of INDEPENDENT regulation. In a perfect world (where is that?) we would behave so well that no regulation of any kind would be required. Sadly, as the litany of abuses reported to the Leveson inquiry illustrates, we do require some form of regulation – mostly to stop journalists from being ordered by their bosses to act unethically.
Report this comment
Backlash headline…way over the top. McCall and Greenslade hit the nail on the head regarding the NUJ stance.
Report this comment
Having worked in both TV and the regional press, I can vouch that the number of “compliancy” laws, rules, regulations, sub-clauses and endless paranoid meddling that television news is subjected to is a freaking nightmare.
If the press ends up being harnessed by regulation even half as draconian as that which the broadcast media toils under, it might as well pack up now.
A bit more backbone from the NUJ would be appreciated on this.
Report this comment
Michelle Stanistreet has shot herself in the foot.
She is not wrong – she is quite right, in fact, that some statutory regulation is “inevitable” (not actually a good thing, you note, and not something she’s calling for). But at a time when the NUJ is struggling to survive she has given ammo to the army of weird journos out there who view the NUJ in the same way the the Tea Party view socialised medicine, and who squeal whenever it tries to do anything to protect its members.
She has also given ammo to other weird journos out there who regard ANY form of statutory press regulation as akin to Stalin’s Russia, and who really believe they should be allowed to say what they like, when they like, and pillory anyone they like, regardless of truth, public interest or value, in the name of “free speech”.
Her remarks were a PR blunder, from someone who is doing a valiant job in trying to keep the union alive and relevant. I hope it doesn’t cost her her job, because if it does it’s the end of the NUJ and thus of vital union protection for thousands of ordinary journos out there who need it – whether they believe it or not.
Report this comment
Just following Roy’s example and letting everyone know I am keeping in touch whilst on hols. Salute.
Report this comment
In my experience, the NUJ were pretty good at regulation themselves.
When I was a reporter, the FoC (also chief sub) regularly checked our copy for ‘political correctness’ and would also censor /alter stories that expressed right-of-centre viewpoints to suit the NUJ’s latest political doctrine.
Government-appointed regulators wouldn’t be as strict, or as intimidating, as they were!
Report this comment
I stand corrected and apologise for my earlier comment.
Report this comment
To all the knockers – get off your high horse and realise that journalism isn’t the priesthood – it’s a job, not a vocation. And theses days, journalists need the NUJ more than ever. They may be weakened, but who else do you think is going to fight your corner?
Report this comment
That’s certainly contributing to the problem: so many people viewing journalism as just a job, not a vocation.
The union is right. A regulator with its independence enshrined in law will make a far better regulator than the toothless PCC whose only effective work is mildly ticking off the editors of regional papers for minor breaches, rather than what it should have be doing which is holding the editors of national newspapers to task for bringing the rest of the press into disrepute.
Report this comment
When was the last time the NUJ fought anyone’s corner?
Checking out the latest journalism in some far-flung corner of the world for a 10,000-word feature in their glossy magazine, spouting out evidence to Leveson that means nothing to me or my desires, happily paying themselves a fortune, watching idly as hundreds of journalists face losing their jobs, oh, then asking us for more money, does not, in my mind, count as fighting anyone’s corner but their own.
The NUJ has become a body with no teeth, let alone any bite, which merely seems happy to speak on my behalf, even if I disagree, backed by those who are in a position to support – namely, not fearing the chop every time they walk in to the newsroom.
Pathetic.
Report this comment
Does anybody care what the NUJ thinks any more? I left long ago because it was and is ineffective and often ignored.
Report this comment
Calls for regulation invariably come from the Left – whether or not the NUJ used the actual words or not – because statism is at the heart of Left wing political thinking. It also sits at the heart of their economic philosophy, because regulation requires regulators, and that means jobs (regardless of how they are funded, although Greece has a model). It doesn’t matter WHAT is being regulated – the whole point is to regulate WHATEVER can be regulated. The mistake made by everyone is to assume that the NUJ has anything at all to do with journalism. The NUJ is better described as a political movement which regards journalism as being just one of the many ways in which they can pursue their objectives. Inevitably, this is lost on starry-eyed new entrants to the industry. Cleland Thom’s comments, if correct, speak for themselves. The NUJ’s notion that regulation would allow staff to reject “unethical” assignments sounds half credible in isolation. The hole below the waterline is that mission creep soon results; today, it’s refusing to do a death knock. Tomorrow, it’s refusing to do any particular task simply because the employee (that’s the person hired by an employer) either doesn’t fancy it, thinks it’s ‘like, wrong, y’know?’ or doesn’t see the point ( through lack of experience).
Any good the NUJ did for journalism has long since passed – and it did do good, in its earliest days, as can be seen in Clement Bundock’s book, “A Jubilee History 1907 – 1957″.
None of this debate would matter, except that what is being fought for, even as you read this, is Article 10 of the ECHR – freedom of expression. What a pity the UK does not have an American-style First Amendment.
Report this comment