09.11.09
Look
out for updates on this subject
Many have been shocked by my series of revelations exposing how ‘NUJ
Left’ is seeking to seize control of the national union of journalists.
I am running as a candidate in the election for the editor of the NUJ’s
magazine, the Journalist, with what I believe is a really good, clear
programme. I want to increase the magazine’s frequency; break more stories
about our industry, while maintaining strong features; and launch a proper
website.
My vision is for a magazine focussed on profess-ional and work-place
issues that matter to NUJ members as journalists. I would ensure that the
Journalist is independent from any party, including the NUJ “leadership”.
NUJ members have only until November 16 to vote with their postal ballots.
As the campaign unfolded, I discovered how a political faction inspired
by the socialist workers party (SWP) is close to hijacking our union, and,
as part of its plan, wanted to usher in Richard Simcox – who was elected
onto its steering committee last May – to the job of Journalist
editor.
As a journalist, my duty is to report – even uncom-fortable truths
– not to censor. NUJ members had a right to know. Unlike some, I believe
that the union is worth saving.
I have had amazing feedback, and most journalists have shared my astonishment
at the threat to the union posed by “NUJ Left”. By contrast, people
in – or on the fringes of – the SWP-inspired faction have cried
foul.
My most prominent critic has been Roy Green-slade, media commentator
of The Guardian, who described my investigation as a “sham”.
He was forced to apologise for a second piece
for calling into question my “mental health”. I had complained
to the editor of The Guardian, saying that it was utterly inappropriate.
I do not expect Greenslade to be rational in his comments, as indeed
he was not, so I made no complaint about that. There has been far worse in
the “blogosphere”. The “NUJ Left” gang effected its
own version of the scientologists’ “fair-game” strategy
in which anyone who dares to criticise them are treated with an array of hysterical
smears (as can be witnessed in the Guardian discussion threads).
I pointed out that while such a piece was the norm on obscure blogs,
it should not be published by a proper journalist on a national newspaper’s
website.
The initial response of The Guardian was swift: Greenslade
amended the article and published an apology.
But why had Greenslade dismissed my investig-ation as a “sham”
when he failed to address the main revelations?
He apparently laughed aloud at my suggestion that Simcox “was
some kind of secret leftie”. If so, then Greenslade had missed the point.
My revelation was that “NUJ Left” had fielded a candidate
without a proper declaration being made to the voters: in the mass of election
material sent with the ballot papers, the e-mail circular sent to members
via the NUJ, or even on the candidate’s campaign website.
Moreover, my e-mail circular
revealed to our union’s members that “NUJ Left” acts like
a political party by seeking, as it says itself, to “propagate NUJ Left
aims and objectives, and any agreed policies, across the union,” ensuring
“senior lay and elected left officials are accountable to NUJ Left.”
And, its aims include: “Identifying and targeting key elected
posts and NEC seats, democratically agreeing slates for elections, and campaigning
for NUJ Left candidates, to advance our influence.”
Greenslade simply failed to address my sub-sequent revelation
that some NUJ staff members were taking time off to campaign for – not
merely endorse – the “NUJ Left” candidate in the election.
I had obtained an e-mail proving that the NUJ’s campaigns and communications
officer, Miles Barter,
who was also elected onto the faction’s “steering committee”
last May, was actively campaigning for the political group’s candidate.
Greenslade said that my revelations were “akin to exposing Gordon
Brown and Peter Mandelson as members of the Labour party.” But he overlooked
the difference between Labour and “NUJ Left”: the latter denies
acting like a political party. Greenslade implicitly, albeit accidentally,
endorsed one of my key revelations: “NUJ Left”, despite being
an undeclared political party organising within the NUJ, behaves just like
one.
Then I revealed
how the Trotskyist SWP helped to re-launch “NUJ Left” last November
as a vehicle to take control of the union.
Greenslade attempted to dismiss this article by, first, saying that
he was worried about my mental health, and then ignoring the main point of
the piece, as was clearly set out in the headline and intro.
Declaring interests
Greenslade failed to make what I regard as proper declarations of interest
that were highly relevant to the subject.
Indeed, he suggested that he had none to make. In his first article,
he wrote: “Let me make it clear. I have no axe to grind. I spoke at
the NUJ Left meeting in February – alongside the wonderful Nick
Jones – but I did so as a supporter of journalism, not the union
or NUJ Left. Simcox has often criticised me harshly... so I cannot be construed
as a friend or supporter of his.”
But it transpired that Greenslade was listed as a supporter on Simcox’s
Facebook campaign page.
This was revealed in the comment thread after Greenslade’s first
article by someone apparently using the pseudonym, “Nick Carraway”,
the name of a character in Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, The Great Gatsby.
Greenslade responded: “I am not a Rich-Simcox-for-editor-of-The-Journalist
supporter. I'm baffled by the inclusion of my name on the Facebook site that
suggests otherwise.”
Someone using the name “Daisy Fay”, another character in
The Great Gatsby, added a comment that increased pressure on the
point.
And those anonymous commenters later made postings in the discussion
that suggest they are “NUJ Left” supporters.
The key question for The Guardian is: why exactly might “NUJ
Left” supporters be upset that Green-slade had denied supporting Simcox?
Greenslade is indeed listed as a member of the relevant Facebook group
and, as I told The Guardian, such inclusion was surely made with
his express agreement.
Following my complaint, Greenslade’s initial response was: “It
has been suggested that I failed to declare that I was a supporter of Rich
Simcox on Facebook. I reiterate what I have said before: I was totally unaware
of that fact. It appears that I may have inadvertently responded to a Facebook
friend request. What I can say, unequivocally, is that I am not a Simcox supporter
nor am I an NUJ Left supporter.”
Well, employing the journalistic jargon favoured by Guardian
commentators: hmm.
Declaring more interests
My investigations
team at Sunday Business made many of the revelations in the Mirror
share-dealing affair. You should have heard how Piers Morgan, the then editor,
squealed as we exposed him.
Of course, the Mirror would have been spared the pain of such
excruciating scrutiny – and, indeed, stopped me from having so much
fun – had it declared when publishing an article by the two “City
Slickers” ramping the share-price of a little-known computer company
that they – and their editor – had just bought shares in it.
Many “NUJ Left” supporters in this election debate have
shown that they do not understand the importance of declarations of interest.
But a proper journalist such as Greenslade does. And yet in his first article
he failed even to mention the working relationship that he had had with me.
He did so only belatedly and disingenuously in the comment thread.
He appeared as a guest two years ago for two editions of the daily
newspaper review programme that I presented
and executive produced, Between the Headlines, on Press TV.
In addition, Kevin Cahill, an investigative journalist with whom I
have worked on many projects, challenged Greenslade in the discussion thread:
“Before castigating Mark Watts for his attack, not on the left, because
he is left-leaning himself, but on a failure to declare a political affiliation
in an election address, perhaps you should have mentioned your own far-left
background, Roy?”
Greenslade responded: “My own left-wing back-ground is a matter
of public record. Read my book, Goodbye to the Working Class.”
A friend saved me from that fate by digging out from a 1997 edition
of the New Statesman a review written by Greenslade on a book about
SWP’s origins. He wrote: “The communist party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
was, at least during my membership some 20 years ago, Maoist.”
Just why was Greenslade quite so coy about making proper declarations
with his article that were plainly pertinent to the subject upon which he
professed to make disinterested comment?
Perhaps he will do so now.
Mark Watts – freelance journalist, broadcaster and FOIA
Centre co-ordinator – is standing in the election on the basis that
the new editor of the Journalist should be an independent
journalist at heart – not a politicised activist. He is not a member
of any political party or group. The Channel 4 news presenter,
Jon Snow, and
an army of other
eminent journalists
from all corners
of the media industry, and from across the UK and Ireland, have backed his
election bid.
Comment
on this article
Revealed: SWP helped to
re-launch ‘NUJ Left’
‘Hanky panky’
in NUJ election revealed
Union
staff campaign for ‘NUJ Left’ candidate
NUJ extends voting period
following request
Four election candidates
seek vote extension
NUJ peer raises election issue
in parliament
Watts unmasks ‘NUJ
Left’ candidate in circular
C4 News anchor Jon
Snow backs Watts for editor
Former BBC political
reporter supports Watts
Top journalists back
Watts election campaign
More journalists
support election bid by Watts
Watts campaigns for independent
Journalist
FOIA
specialist in election for Journalist editorship
Journalistic background
of Mark Watts
Comments
on Journalist election (7)
Headlines
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||