Journalistic benefits

October 10th, 2003 | by aobaoill |

Here’s an interesting issue. DIY Media has been pushing for free access for journalists to Free Press’s Media Reform conference, and now reports that will happen.

There are some endearing examples provided by DIY Media:

I know of at least one IMC-Madison reporter who had planned to attend but now cannot, as the $75 cover charge is a bit steep for a few interviews, and he lives mere blocks from the conference center.

John Nichols’s response when questioned was magnaminous:

Of course journalists would not be required to pay for entry. He said they will not make distinctions between news organizations, either – the New York Times and Indymedia will get equal treatment, although there is concern lots of folks may show up and claim to be IMC reporters just for a free pass.

I would wonder however, whether journalists should get free access. Here’s my line of thinking:

  • The Free Press conference has two categories of attendance fee – $175 (regular) and $75 (restricted income, on an honor basis) – and also has an extensive scholarship programme. The funds available for scholarships ($35,000) are approximately the same as those raised from attendance fees. The attendance fees were lower ($150, $50) for those who registered early (up to early September).
  • A commitment to a transformation of the operation of the mass media, to a more participatory model, which the organisers have, is different, I would argue, from merely a commitment to small-scale media. It involves a reconceptualisation of the media production process as something integral to social activities, rather than something happening in parallel. This is something that I think DIY Media and others would accept, as a general point.
  • This change, however, results in the role of journalist changing fundamentally. Not only do you have more part-time and ‘amateur’/volunteer journalists, but journalist stops being something you are, and becomes something you do.
  • Since, under this formulation, all attendees are potentially, and preferably, part of the media process, how can one realistically argue for preferential treatment, either for representatives of the corporate media, or for those who represent themselves as primarily journalists? Under this formulation, I could seek a waiver on the grounds that I produce funferal and the funferal observer. However, while I will doubtless be reporting on the conference on this site, I will also be participating in the conference as a student and general activist. I did seek funding, but I did this under the general scholarship programme, which allowed the organisers to balance support on the basis of their various priorities (such as diversity of social groups and backgrounds, utility of attendance for the attendee and the greater community), rather than a unilateral waiver for a set (if indeterminate) class ‘journalist’ and despite the temptation, I will not be looking for reimbursement of my attendance fee on the basis of my ‘journalism’ credentials.
  • In addition, consider this. Since the conference organisers are obviously attempting to maximise opportunities to attend, through lower registration fees and scholarships, the fact that a well-paid New York Times journalist, with access to an expense account, can get in for free while I must pay $50, is manifestly unfair and against the conference ethos. But if the New York Times journalist should pay $175, why should an Indymedia journalist bypass the fee/scholarship process that other applicants follow? This is especially the case given that this is a media-related conference, where almost all attendees can be expected to be involved, directly or indirectly in media production of some sort.
  • Following on from this, one wonders how someone active in remaking the media landscape, such as an Indymedia journalist, can or indeed should remain a passive observer at a conference at which discussions on the preferred future direction of media is being discussed. If a journalist gets a fee waiver in order to cover the conference, will they take part in the discussions? Should they?

I admit my mind is still open on this, but I don’t think the matter is as simple as DIY Media suggests. I’m reminded of a column in a local Galway paper some years ago where the journalist complained that his NUJ card (press card) had not secured him free entry to a nightclub – I think it may even have been a charity gig. The presumtion of entitlement to benefits – that freeloading is always balanced by the return to society given by the presence of the journalist – is flawed, especially in a system that aims to empower all people to become involved in the discursive and story-telling process.

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.