Would paid contributions for 'witness contributors' put journalists out of work?

The discussion about the NUJ's code of practice for 'witness contributors' rumbles on. Members at the London Magazine Branch meeting I was at on Monday want the name changed to 'citizen journalists' and also want major changes to the content.

I won't go through the whole thing from scratch, but essentially it's the clause requiring publishers to pay for all user-generated content that is the biggest sticking point.

Most of these members work for business magazines where comments and contributions from readers are common, and the debate threw up a couple of new ideas on the paid contributions theme. As one example of the problems of this guideline; if those readers are company directors commenting on their own business in a piece, it really wouldn't be appropriate to pay them.

Freelancer Chris Wheal (who, it has to be said, likes a good debate) said that when he interviews subjects they occasionally ask if they will be paid. He says no.

"And if we get to the point where citizen journalists start thinking they should be paid for it, we're not going to have any stories left. Everybody we ring up is going to say hang on a minute, if I write this I'll get paid for it," he said.

"It will get to the point where nobody will talk unless you throw them a fistful of dollars."

So taking that point to its logical extreme, would paid contributions from citizen journalists actually put journalists out of work? I'm quite sure that wasn't the intention of the code.

The NUJ has to represent its members, but has drafted a code for non-member citizen journalists that needs to be adopted by publishers. It just doesn't add up. Much more discussion required.

To be continued, no doubt...

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).