To the ironically confused Martin, aka “pom-pom boy”. I see that you managed to shake your pom-poms after just over half-an-hour of my post at 10.42pm last night. But you managed it within five minutes previously. Shaking those pom-poms must be so tiring. Let’s see how you do this time.
And don’t be so hard on yourself by saying that you are boring everyone. This thread is the most commonly viewed subject on this forum after the “poll” and candidates answering “what do you stand for”, according to the forum’s own stats at the time of writing. And I only started it on October 20.
You still seem to be confused at the idea of my condemning a political faction as distinct from members of that faction. I was careful in my e-mail circular not to launch a personal attack on any individual.
As I said previously on this forum: “My e-mail circular condemned ‘NUJ Left’, its aims and the fielding of a candidate without that being declared properly to the electorate: there was nothing personal about it.” There was, indeed, nothing personal about my attack, and that is shown by the fact that I have not automatically condemned anyone even if s/he is part of “NUJ Left”.
Martin, put down the pom-poms for a few minutes, and read my e-mail circular. It is really very clear.
It can be inferred from what I have said that I regard Richard Simcox’s failure to declare in his election material sent to the electorate the fact that he is the “NUJ Left” candidate as a serious omission. I regard that omission as wrong. It was a mistake. A serious mistake. I think that the electorate, the NUJ members, had a right to know. Hey, maybe they don’t care. I hope they do. We will see. Beyond that, I have not criticised Richard personally.
Further, I regard the aims of “NUJ Left”, as I quoted them, to be wrong. The approach is wrong, seriously wrong. I think that the electorate, the NUJ members, had a right to know about what “NUJ Left” is aiming to do. Again, maybe they don’t care. I hope they do. We will see. Beyond that, I have not criticised anyone simply for being in “NUJ Left”.
As I wrote in my e-mail circular: “So, what is ‘NUJ Left’? Several friends of mine have told me that it sounds like just the kind of group to which I would belong. I believe that some people have indeed been lured in by what, to many journalists, would seem an innocuous-sounding group. Ah, they might say to themselves, little, cuddly ‘NUJ Left’.
“Cuddly, it ain’t.
“They call themselves a “coalition”. Where I come from, we use a different c-word: to my mind, they’re a cabal.”
I stand by that, and everything else, I have said.
Now, “walking the walk”. The story so far. I wrote:
“As to ‘walking the walk’, let me remind you of what I actually said in a previous posting on this forum: ‘I have even seen a made-up suggestion that I ‘admit to having no real interest in the union.’ This type of slur is in marked contrast with the factual basis of my e-mail. In fact, I have admitted no such thing. Given that it is demonstrably untrue, why would I? Most members want their union back from the hijackers to focus on issues of concern to NUJ members as journalists. I want us to have our union back. As is clear from my election campaign material, I was joint-FoC on
Sunday Business, I fought a battle alongside Jeremy Dear, then as national organiser for newspapers, to seek recognition there for the NUJ. That process stalled, however, after I was fired from
Sunday Business for protesting about job cuts. I wonder how many ‘activists’ in ‘NUJ Left’ have lost decent journalistic jobs after standing up for NUJ colleagues. They may well march and stomp, but do they ever walk the walk?’
“So, while you claim that I stated that I was the only person in the union who has ever ‘walked the walk’, I in fact said no such thing. I posed the question as quoted. I did not presume to know the answer in your case, or indeed anybody else’s. However, I notice that neither you nor your friends in ‘NUJ Left’ have answered it.”
You responded, in a half-hour pom-pom flash: “I think you've shown yourself up when attempting to explain your ludicrous remark about walking the walk, so that needs no further comment.”
But, Martin, why so bashful? I know many journalists who have lost decent journalistic jobs after standing up for NUJ colleagues. I am well aware that chapel officials are often especially vulnerable to a bit of management punishment for standing up for colleagues. So, please, put down the pom-poms, and tell Uncle Mark all about the time when you walked the walk. You are, surely, really desperate to tell us. So, tell us about the time that you lost a decent journalistic job after standing up for NUJ colleagues.
You refer to a wannabe pom-pom boy, who claimed that he regretted voting for me 1 and Richard 2 and was seeking advice on how to change it without spoiling the ballot.
Well, we can only ask voters to read what candidates say in their election material. I had written: “I strongly believe in independent journalism, and that must apply to what is published in the
Journalist. I would ensure that it keeps independent of the NUJ ‘leadership’ and serves journalists who belong to the NUJ.”
During the course of this election campaign, I discovered important, hard truths about which the vast majority of the electorate knew nothing. As a journalist, it is my duty to report, not to censor hard truths.
As to the suggestion that I wanted to “save the NUJ from the left”, this is further evidence of a failure to read properly. As I said above and in the e-mail circular: “Several friends of mine have told me that it [‘NUJ Left’] sounds like just the kind of group to which I would belong.” I also said in my e-mail circular: “The fact that the group is ‘left-wing’ is irrelevant: a cabal in the NUJ is poisonous regardless of its political hue, extreme or otherwise.”
You seek to deny the comment in my previous post, in which I said: “Both before and after the distribution of my e-mail circular, in online commenting you have performed the role of the cheerleader for the interests of ‘NUJ Left’.”
So, forensically dissect that, you say.
Scalpel, please. Here goes...
As I stated in my e-mail circular: “My election campaign has already brought the existence of ‘NUJ Left’ to somewhat wider attention
http://www.foiacentre.com/FOIA-news.html.” Indeed, an article published on the news section of the website of the FOIA Centre, where I am the co-ordinator, headlined, “FOIA specialist in NUJ’s Journalist election” dated 29.09.09, named Richard Simcox as the “NUJ Left” candidate (
http://www.foiacentre.com/news-NUJ-Journalist-editor.html).
More detail about “NUJ Left” was published by the FOIA Centre in an article headlined, “Watts campaigns for independent Journalist” dated 12.10.09 (
http://www.foiacentre.com/news-NUJ-Journalist-editor-debate.html).
Two further articles published by the FOIA Centre, one dated 12.10.09, headlined, “More journalists support election bid by Watts,” (
http://www.foiacentre.com/news-NUJ-Journalist-editor-endorsements02.html) and another dated 15.10.09, headlined, “C4 News anchor Snow backs Watts for editor” (
http://www.foiacentre.com/news-NUJ-Journalist-editor-endorsements03.html) also referred to “NUJ Left”.
On 13.10.09 – a week before the distribution of my e-mail circular to NUJ members – you posted a comment on a blog responding to Simon Chapman’s raising of concerns about the aims of “NUJ Left”
http://jonslattery.blogspot.com/2009/10/battle-hots-up-for-journalist.html.
Did you forget what you wrote? I will remind you: “Ouch, Simon. ‘Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?’ Interesting use of language if you're familiar with 20th Century history.
“Let's not get our knickers in a twist over the NUJ Left. It's one of a number of groupings within the NUJ, like the photographers' network or the subs' network, in which like-minded people organise together.
“And there are lots of us on the left who don't particularly identify with the way the NUJ Left organises, so let's keep things in perspective. I lean left, but I'm thinking of backing one of two other candidates. I don't think that will compromise their independence. People aren't as easily put into boxes as some seem to think.”
And on 20.10.09, shortly after the distribution of the e-mail circular, you began a comment on the same blog
http://jonslattery.blogspot.com/2009/10/fight-for-journalist-job-gets-personal.html thus: “It's classic McCarthyism, and also one of the most absurd rants I've read in a long time.”
So, you raised the charge of McCarthyism against a critic of “NUJ Left” before the circular, and the same charge against me afterwards. As I said: “Both before and after the distribution of my e-mail circular, in online commenting you have performed the role of the cheerleader for the interests of ‘NUJ Left’.” You have of course posted many other comments in a similar vein, including on this forum.
However, as I have noted previously on this thread: “A particularly nasty smear campaign has been mounted against anyone – not just me, it seems – criticising ‘NUJ Left’ as ‘McCarthyist’. (I note the distinction between this use of emotive labels as part of the smear strategy against me and other ‘NUJ Left’ critics, compared with the forensic dissection of my e-mail: again, the distinction between ‘activist’ and ‘journalist’.)
“The ‘McCarthyist’ charge betrays either a poor knowledge of American history of the Cold War, or an inability to read. What marked out the McCarthy witch-hunts was the insistence that a whole range of people, famously including Hollywood actors, to declare their political allegiances.
“However, anyone reading my e-mail would have seen me say: ‘In general, I believe that no one should be under any obligation to declare her or his political allegiance. However, if you stand for office as, for example, a councillor, MP or MEP, you’re expected to declare any political allegiances. Imagine the uproar if a candidate standing as an independent in such an election were discovered to be part of some party.
“‘Why should it be different for a trade union that is supposed to be democratically governed?’”
Oh, dear. Have your little pom-poms been cut to shreds? Never mind, I am sure that your friends in “NUJ Left” can find new ones for you. But I would not go for red ones again. It is not a good look for one’s pom-poms to match the colour of one’s cheeks. Go for pink ones instead next time. Pom pom.
