Please mind the gap

The UK's National Union of Journalists has conjured up a thoroughly bizarre "Code of Practice" that attempts to throw wooden shoes into the gears of the new journalism that is growing around us. It's available only as a Microsoft Word file.

It begins by trying to jam public participation into a strangely named box: "witness contributions," which it declares constitute a threat to "integrity and reliability of material and the safety of bona fide newsgatherers." I thought "citizen journalism" was problematic enough; "witness contributors" is outright painful.

It would prohibit the press from using publicly contributed materials without payment, prohibit unfiltered postings and prohibit the use of material contributed by the public when a union member's work is available as an alternative.

So much for facilitating a conversation.

Whose interests are we protecting? The public's or those of the commercial press? The gap is a dangerous one.

See also: Neil Macintosh and Emily Bell.

Comments

I've read the said document several times and I strive to extract from it what you did.
What should the NUJ be protecting? - the accuracy and the transparency of the information process, and the safety of those involved in information gathering.
Who's interests are journalists trying to protect?
Those of free, balanced, plural, and transparent public debate, I presume.
Journalists know their job description has to change. Journalists know their relation with the 'audiences' has to change. Journalists know their work routines must be transparent and their interests declared. Still, journalists who know this also know their occupation is about more than providing a product, and know that most of what is written about 'citizen journalism' has far less to do with citizenship than with entrepeneurial logic.
Your assumption of a corporative reaction - which no doubt exists - automatically presumes wrongdoing. That, I think, is an excellent departure point for unreasonable argumentation. Furthermore, it seems to propose that somewhere in the land of 'easy conversations' the air is cleaner, free from all constraints. That is not so, and I think you know that.

Please forgive me for any english mistakes (and for being so bold in stating my point).

Neil Macintosh follows up.

Jeff Jarvis has posted an HTML transcription of the document.