Fears for free speech after journalists’ union refuses to defend gender-critical members

[IwantToRetire]

Britain’s leading journalist union has rejected calls to defend members who cover trans issues and gender-critical beliefs, prompting fears for the freedom of the press.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) was called upon at a meeting to issue a statement supporting members who covered “the debate on sex and gender”, and condemning abuse they might receive for discussing “gender critical viewpoints”.

Union members rejected calls to publicly defend those covering the trans debate, as some branded it “transphobic”, according to insiders.

This has raised concerns among insiders that freedom of the press is only afforded to one side in the gender debate, and some have suggested that it may undermine the union’s own code of conduct ledge to “uphold and defend the principle of media freedom”.

Some have suggested that the union is another institution “hijacked” by censors.

The motion rejected by members stated that the union’s leadership should state that it “believes that journalists should be able to report and comment on issues of sex and gender, and any debate on these subjects should be informed and respectful”.

It adds that the union should “issue a statement affirming that it is entirely appropriate for journalists, in the course of their work, to discuss all sides of the debate on sex and gender identity including trans rights and gender critical viewpoints”.

The motion, drafted in the context of online abuse and “cancel culture” facing dissenting voices, adds that “journalists should not suffer professionally for doing so if they have acted responsibly and according to the Code of Conduct”.

The motion calling on the NUJ’s National Executive Council to issue this public statement on the legitimacy of reporting and commenting on gender issues was rejected by 62 votes to 48 at the meeting of delegates from across the country, The Telegraph understands.

This is part of a longer article from the Telegraph reprinted by yahoo Fears for free speech after journalists’ union refuses to defend gender-critical members (yahoo.com)

Well that's not good

Why am I not in the least surprised? The media was the first to be captured, then cjs and education etc.

Well colour me surprised.

BoobBoom, I’m not surprised either, but I wonder if the NUJ leadership has seen the reporting from EPATH - with medical evidence clearly demonstrating the damage done to children by medical transition, yet they feel this shouldn’t be shared by journalists? Baffling

All the other unions seem to be completely captured as well, so I guess not surprising.

This is mental though. 😦

Not unsurprising given the racist and misogynistic reporting we see in mainstream media.

Disgusting and equally not surprising given some of the trash material that the media produce

I would cut the NUJ some slack heres especially as mentioned there is already a general commitment to defending free speech.

This I would guess some NUJ members voted against this as they believed that would be enough and the specific statement would only escalate a debate between GC and TWAW camps. They may believe they are some people who use the GC position as cover for transphobia even if it is not all. There are a lot of positions to take and I think most neutrals in the debate would vote against it as frankly it does not matter that much.

Unions do occasionally offer these sort of statements about specific groups reinforcing a general policy. Some people see them as worth it, others see them as pointless posturing.

This vote really does not mean much.

I agree with this. I don't see any need for them to make a statement unless there is a specific case ongoing where their members might need support.

If they just come out with a statement like that out of the blue it would just be taken as inflammatory.

In the same vein, I wouldn't expect them to just come out with a statement that TWAW etc and there is to be no debate to the contrary.

The vast majority of newspaper articles that i see about trans people are from a GC perspective. GC journalists are not being censored or silenced.

I would reserve judgement until I had seen the text. If they had documented specific cases it may have been worth supporting but I do think there is too much of this sort of thing going on where people declare rights for all and then say specifically for XYZ. It is actually a common trans rights tactic. They love to shout about trans rights rather than say which universal rights they are denied.

THEY HAD ONE JOB...

"Journalists don’t understand journalism. Nor the role of a union apparently. Embarrassed of and for my union. They certainly don’t speak for me or for many other sensible journalists I know who defend colleagues against attacks on the free press.

Unions exist to defend their members doing their job. Not to take sectarian positions on debates that divide their members and society.

I wouldn’t expect my union to take a position either way on the conflict between sex- and gender identity-based rights. It wouldn’t be appropriate. Simply to do their job defending journalists reporting and writing about these issues without fear or favour.

I mean, you couldn’t make it up could you?"

twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1654236168861433861?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"Britain’s leading journalist union has rejected calls to defend members who cover trans issues and gender-critical beliefs, prompting fears for the freedom of the press,"

'prompting fears' is one of those phrases journalists use when they do not have much evidence, literally trying to whip up a panic.

Journalists at the Guardian have been shoved out or persuaded to leave but newspapers do have a right to take stance on issues, plus Hadley and Moore have new jobs. It means that the Guardian has turned it's back on its feminist tradition but it is not an attack on press freedom.

Britain’s leading journalist union has rejected calls to defend members who cover trans issues and gender-critical beliefs

This is a disgrace, but not a surprise, when you look at the cowardly, dishonest coverage of women’s rights/ trans issues in most of the media. Almost all unions seem equally biased and misogynist now. Freedom of speech is a joke.

As Rex says, journalists have one job …

What a shame.

The press is evidently being censored in other parts of the world one example being reduxx. The reporting in KJK tours have been inaccurate. How many journalists are scared off reporting accurately having watched what happens to those who try to? I think censoring here has been happening and I think this shows clearly it is

newspapers do have a right to take stance on issues

Come on - most of know that newspaper are politically partisan but what we do not expect is editors to stop their reporters reporting facts.

We wouldn't take seriously a newspaper that became dominated by followers of the flat earth society and then silenced anyone who said you do know the world is round?

Playing what has become far more than silly games with words means that some so called "reporters" talk about people changing sex. Everyone know you cant change your biology. But as a result of the politics of queer culture filtering into newspapers, the word gender began to be used instead of sex so that they could perpetuate this lie.

So no it is an absolute disgrace that these political parasites have been allowed to inflitrate and subron language.

As to Journalists at the Guardian have been shoved out or persuaded to leave - what a despicable thing to say. So not only are we meant to accept that journalists are abuse their position to infiltrate that politics into "reporting", but we are meant to think it is okay that women get bullied in the work place to the extent that they leave.

What a value free lowest denominator viewpoint of the world.

Well looks like the NUJ has realised how bad this looks, but if you read the statement issued afterwards, I dont think any of us will be reassured about being able to rely on reporters to acually report.

https://www.nuj.org.uk/resource/statement-from-michelle-stanistreet-nuj-general-secretary.html

That article is prompted by TRAs being annoyed that lnm21 didn't pass (nuj didn't publicly oppose s35 ie nuj didn't pledge full allegiance to the trans agenda. They are being accused of paying only lip service by not carrying motion 38).

Motion 38 is only mentioned for the statement to look balanced. They are still trying to appease only one side.

@zanahoria
"the specific statement would only escalate a debate between GC and TWAW camps"

Not escalate a debate! Anything but that! 😮😮

I have some dealings with this union in a professional capacity and it would not surprise me if it was completely overtaken by the Stonewall agenda. It’s very similar to what happened in the academic/higher education unions.

That's not the situation in Wales, where the media is almost completely closed to GC views. Very occasionally a new journalist will dare to venture something on the subject and won't be heard of for a while. Wales on Line turns off the comments section in order to prevent the vast majority of people agreeing with the mildest GC comment. S4C and BBC Wales are captured. Journalists outside Wales can't be arsed because Wales is irrelevant to most things.

Wales is a one-party state with a controlled media. If we weren't able to get access to UK-wide media we'd have no idea what was going on.

Thanks for the link IwantToRetire

Statement from Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary
05 May 2023

Reporting of debates on motions at the NUJ’s recent delegate conference have focussed on the outcome of Motion 38. This motion, strongly supported by the NEC, suggested the union consider issuing a statement regarding reporting on issues of sex and gender. Whilst this motion was not carried, it does not mean that the union’s policy has changed.

Conference later gave permission for Late Notice Motion 21, which the NEC had sought to delete and replace with an alternative, to be withdrawn by the tabling body. This motion, which called for the NUJ to issue a statement in opposition to the use of Section 35 by the UK government in relation to the Scottish government’s Gender Recognition Reform Act, was therefore not debated.

As NUJ general secretary I wrote the NEC’s amendment to LNM21, which is rooted in the union’s existing policy and in our extensive work, both in regards to freedom of expression and also our work on the safety of journalists.
At a time when debate has become polarised, clear and ethical reporting is more important than ever, values that have been core and central to the NUJ’s Code of Conduct throughout the union’s history. Journalists accurately reporting any matter of public interest are entitled to the protection of the NUJ and the NUJ’s NEC will always have due regard to the primacy of the Code of Conduct.

The reality is that in the course of carrying out their work many journalists covering associated issues of public interest, including women’s rights, have been abused, threatened with violence and even driven out of their job. This is wholly unacceptable and no journalist should have to contend with bullying, abuse or threats in the course of their work.

The NUJ’s Ethics Council has already committed to review and update the union’s LGBT+ reporting guidelines, which already clearly express that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have the right to fair, accurate and inclusive reporting of their life stories and concerns. The NUJ is also clear that it believes that media outlets have a leading role in creating a climate of open public discourse that is free of toxicity.

In carrying out this review, which will involve engagement across our membership, the NUJ will also be addressing the journalistic importance of clear and meaningful nationally-collected statistics, clear accessible language in reporting and the need for journalists to be able to report freely and without self-censorship.

The NUJ has taken no position on the UK government’s deployment of Section 35 in relation to the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Act, nor would it be appropriate to do so when there is clearly a diversity of views about its impact on the Equality Act across the UK, including on sex-based rights. This is particularly pertinent when many of our members have jobs that involve reporting on these issues, including at public service broadcasters with a duty of impartiality.

The NUJ believes that principled and reasoned public discourse and an environment where free and fair reporting can flourish is more critical than ever.
--
The NUJ’s Ethics Council has already committed to review and update the union’s LGBT+ reporting guidelines . . .

In carrying out this review, which will involve engagement across our membership, the NUJ will also be addressing the journalistic importance of clear and meaningful nationally-collected statistics, clear accessible language in reporting and the need for journalists to be able to report freely and without self-censorship.

NUJ guidelines on LGBT+ reporting
09 Apr 2021
https://www.nuj.org.uk/resource/nuj-guidelines-on-lgbt--reporting.html

Download from that page.

I wonder what "updates" will be made?

“lesbian” is gender specific - really??

The term “sexual preference” is discouraged, as it does not reflect the scientific consensus on the balance between nurture and nature in sexual development. The preferred term is “sexual orientation”. The term "sexual preference” suggests that being lesbian, gay or bisexual is a free choice. In some cases this may be true, but the term has been adopted by anti-LGBT individuals and organisations seeking to "cure” LGBT people of their “preference”.

Let's hope that Stonewall doesn't get its mitts on this and persuade the NUJ that being same-sex attracted = expressing a "genital preference" = "sexual racism".

"Transgender people are those for whom their current gender identity differs from that declared at birth . . .

That's a new one!

"He came out kicking and screaming and declared that his gender identity was moon gender! Make a note of that in the medical records, nurse."

"In your reporting, always refer to a transgender person's chosen name, and ask them which personal pronoun they would prefer to be used to describe them. If this is not possible, use the pronoun consistent with the person's appearance and gender self-expression. Avoid putting quotation marks around a transgender person's name or pronoun."

Ho hum! I don't suppose they could do more to hide the truth?

When referring to gender identity, use unambiguous terms. That is, a person who is born male and transitions to become female is a “transgender woman”, whereas a person who is born female and transitions to become male is a “transgender man”. Within the transgender community, members often refer to themselves using the shorthand ‘trans’.”

I have a horrible feeling about that one.

More information
We refer you to the media guidelines published by Trans Media Watch:
www.transmediawatch.org/ 

Oh! So not Stonewall. At least not in 2021. Why a Review so soon anyway?

Is Trans Media Watch as influential as it used to be? The "Media Style Guide" authored by Helen Belcher has not been updated since 2015.

Trans Media Watch - Help for the Media
https://transmediawatch.org/help-for-the-media

‘Dear British Journalist’… a Recommended Article
https://transmediawatch.org/dear-british-journalist-a-recommended-article
Posted on April 3, 2023 by tmw_admin in Publications | 0 Comments

Here is an article that the editorial team at Trans Media Watch would like to encourage you to read.

(this is the only "Article" on the Trans Media Watch website and it is just a link to what follows)

DEAR BRITISH JOURNALIST
(It's very long. The author belatedly "self-declared" after 19 years of marriage to be a woman.)
https://kierkegaardslunch.blogspot.com/2023/02/dear-journalist.html

Trans Media Watch
https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5020890

Trustees
Violette Lundsten - Trustee - 19 September 2021

jane fae - Trustee - 17 August 2019

Jessica Coates - Trustee - 17 August 2019

Catherine Burton - Trustee - 20 June 2015

Fiona Mary MacCarthy - Trustee - 25 May 2013

There are no annual reports on the Trans Media Watch website but apparently Jane Fae is the current Chair:
https://twitter.com/TransMediaWatch/status/1642147510700351490

Some other familiar names also crop up in connection with Trans Media Watch.

Some Mumsnet threads:

Trans media watch are lobbying mnhq
17/11/2016
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/2783139-Trans-media-watch-are-lobbying-mnhq

Trans Media Watch has written to parliament saying 'trans identified male' can be considered as hate speech, and that Mumsnet users referring to penises are being transphobic
02/05/2018
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3238618-Trans-Media-Watch-has-written-to-parliament-saying-trans-identified-male-can-be-considered-as-hate-speech-and-that-Mumsnet-users-referring-to-penises-are-being-transphobic

John Ozimek (now Jane Fae) on women, feminists and victims of pornographers
24/09/2018
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3374614-John-Ozimek-now-Jane-Fae-on-women-feminists-and-victims-of-pornographers

Stephen Whittle (Press for Change) irresponsible use of 'likely' suicides follows Helen Belcher's (Trans Media Watch)
17/10/2018
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3397127-Stephen-Whittle-Press-for-Change-irresponsible-use-of-likely-suicides-follows-Helen-Belchers-Trans-Media-Watch

Open Letter about Trans Media Portrayal signed by lots
17/10/2018
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3397760-Open-Letter-about-Trans-Media-Portrayal-signed-by-lots
-----
Has Trans Media Watch been working under the RADAR since 2018? Or just off the Mumsnet Sex&Gender RADAR? There are a few other Mumsnet threads with references to them but none much more recent.

Whatever, I hope the NUJ Review of its guidelines on LGBT+ reporting is an improvement.

Perhaps someone could recommend they consult:

Sex Matters in the Media webinar
https://sex-matters.org/posts/data-and-statistics/sex-matters-in-the-media/

Sex Matters Media handbook on sex and gender
This handbook explains when and why it is right for journalists and editors to talk about people’s sex, and the problems that result if they fail to do so. It prioritises truth, accuracy and maintaining public trust, and within those constraints, minimising possible offence.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/media-handbook-on-sex-and-gender/

ps. There is an interesting poll if you scroll to the bottom of this article:

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/fears-free-speech-journalists-union-182225225.html

LGBTQ+ journalists face a hostile environment in the UK, with most finding themselves the objects of online harassment and abuse, a study has suggested.

The research, which was commissioned by the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity (LHC), indicated that many saw their roles as dangerous and wanted more support from senior colleagues.

The study particularly noted abuse targeted at transgender people, with LGBTQ+ journalists saying taking part in media coverage of trans issues often led to high levels of abuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/may/09/uk-hostile-environment-for-lgbtq-journalists-study-online-abuse-harassment

I wonder if the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity has done similar research on women journalists? Previous reports have said that in terms of abuse women are the main targets. And how many LGBTQ+ journalists have been bullied out of the work place as has happened to women journalists.

I'm confused by the definition above, so a transgender woman is a bio man and vice versa? Haven't they got that one wrong?
Bio male is tw and a transgender man surely?