Celebrating Journalism

It was great wasn’t it? No more commute, relaxed dress code, home comforts… 

And then it started getting boring, once the novelty wore away, and away and away. Interminable video calls, sat at the desk all day, lack of spontaneous chat with colleagues. Sound familiar? 

But while these may be the downsides to home working – there are other more deep-seated and fundamental ones that businesses and publishers still need to address in my opinion. 

I attended a “conference” – a virtual one of course – the other week about the collaboration culture in driving creative transformation in 2022 organised by Salesforce.com. The panel session quickly focused on the issues around Hybrid Working – how to accommodate the balance between those working from home and those with access to offices. 

It is what has prompted me to write some thoughts about the challenges we face. My caveat to this is I am no expert. However, I did listen to quite a few experts which has fed my thinking. 

The big issue is the imbalance we now have in many workplaces because of hastily put-together home working practices. Now it is becoming permanent, the need to readdress so many working practices is becoming more evident. There is a need for a “levelling up” in the hybridity of home working. 

Let me give a couple of examples.  

Do we have meeting equity? 

How often are meetings now held where some people are in the room and others are tuning in from home. It used to happen a fair bit with people dialling in from offices and that was hard enough – but now it is the norm. What are the issues? 

1) Those in the room have far more say in the meeting. 

2) Those at home struggle to get their say, struggle to be heard, and find it hard to put their point across. 

3) Body language is difficult to read and to interrupt to have your say means you must alter your normal style and behaviour to be heard. 

Equality of access 

Do companies with hybrid working give equality of access for those at home and those with access to the office? 

1) Are you less visible to managers and those who can progress your career if you are not in sight? 

2) Do you have the same opportunity as someone who is sat in the office when your manager wants a volunteer quickly or wants to get something done? 

3) Do you have the same access to the leadership who may be walking the office floor? 

4) And do you have the same access to spontaneous coaching, mentoring or just plain help. 

We are also seeing a shift in the balance of power. Now employees are more “portable” – they can move jobs without moving location – and that gives them more bargaining power and companies more of a retention problem. 

This has had me thinking. Have we really designed our working cultures for a remote working environment? 

We had some big company brands at the conference, and it would be reasonable to say none could really hand on heart say they had got this right. 

One thing is for sure, there is no one-size fits all solution to the future of where and how we work. The pandemic has certainly revolutionised the model and the way we need to think about offices, remote working, and employees’ workplace needs. All this means there is no standard way of working. 

But maybe there are some norms that are common to all businesses. 

Leadership and management 

Do we need to see a new kind of leadership? We need to bring more humility and humanity to leadership – as opposed to a relentless focus on results. We will need to train our leaders and managers to be more empathetic. Do they know how to ask the right questions? And if someone says they’re not alright, do they know how to deal with that? 

One of my editors told me only today that their job seems to be nearly 60% about counselling – but have we equipped them to safely take on that role? 

There is a need for a changing style of leadership and an obligation for leaders to demonstrate where there are inequalities that they can tackle them. 

Why? Because talent is now more mobile – and if you don’t create a level playing field there are more opportunities available. 

Performance management: 

Have we tackled how to do performance management in a hybrid environment? We all have the tools to manage performance and underperformance in an office environment. But how do you deal with it in a hybrid world? How do you know – when you terminate the video call – that your employee is ok?  

And who does the employee have to talk to? If they go back to their desk at work, they have the spontaneity of a chat with a colleague. But the inequality of not having that choice could be mentally disastrous. 

How do we tackle training: How do we encourage people to be creative, have we thought about psychological safety. 

My point is that we need to be intentional in designing remote working practices – rather than assuming we will establish the right norms by a process of osmosis – gradually assimilating ideas and practices. 

If we leave it to chance we will build in inequality and a lack of inclusiveness and a set of values that we would never have dreamed of having if we had intentionally designed them. 

Global companies are wrestling with this and there are solutions. It is now a duty and a necessity for us as business leaders to consciously review our hybrid working practices. 

This blog is my personal opinion: If you have an opinion about this, please feel free to email me jeremyclifford@celebratingjournalism.com

Media organisations across the country signed up for a social media boycott in support of the Premier League and English Football League action this weekend.

The football leagues launched the blackout in exasperation at the failure of the tech giants to act to eradicate racism and hate directed against their players from their platforms.
It would have been incongruous for media companies not to support this action – effectively condoning the racism by continuing to stream reports about the players and games that the leagues were imposing a blackout on.
So, in effect, despite a loss of significant revenues for most publishers, they had little choice to support the boycott.
The questions that have exercised my mind this week in the lead up to the boycott, are these: What is the boycott going to achieve? What will the media companies achieve by imposing a blackout that will impact their businesses? And what about our staff who are routinely abused on social media – how do we square that circle?
I came to the conclusion that it is right to support the boycott for the following reasons.

What will the boycott achieve?

It has already achieved a lot. It has further raised the stakes for social media companies to take action. The power and influence of football cannot be overstated. Just look at the powerful backlash from the fans last month who scuppered the ambition of some of the most powerful football clubs in the world to create a European Super-League.

The campaign by Manchester United’s Marcus Rashford to fight for better funding for school children’s home school meal support, forced the Government to perform an embarrassing U-turn. It was only after his intervention that the Government crumbled – having ignored all previous pleas from parents, schools and lobbyists.

And so, I may be naiive in this hope, but where Governments and media companies have failed in their attempts to regulate tech platforms or bring them to the table to coerce them to control commenting, irresponsible and dangerous posting and hate-inciting content on their platforms, the multi-billion pound influence of football clubs may succeed.
No doubt, there are already behind-the-scenes conversations taking place between Facebook, Twitter and other platforms with the football leagues as a result of the embarrassment being heaped on them and potential damage to their corporate brands. No company can ignore image-damaging publicity – no matter how big they are.

What will media companies achieve by supporting the boycott which comes at a cost to their own revenues?

Unlike the football clubs’ principled stance, this is also a business decision by the media companies to back a boycott. Referrals via social media to websites are still an important part of the business model for media companies. And with audiences following links to websites, comes revenue either through programmatic advertising revenue or people subscribing or paying directly for the content.

It would also be damaging for our brand reputations not to support the action of our football clubs – an important part of our content model – but also a partnership on which both rely. How could we possibly justify merrily tweeting running commentary or posting links to our reports on a platform that for this weekend the football clubs had declared persona non grata.

It does raise the question, if the clubs shout, do we have to mindlessly jump? The answer, of course, is no. We have to weigh every decision on their  individual merits. But to my mind, it was right to partner with them.

This should act as a spur not only to support football in its campaign against racism, hate and homophobia, but to widen the campaign to every other aspect of irresponsibility made possible by an unregulated social media world.

As Stuart Brennan, Manchester City reporter for the Manchester Evening News, said on the Behind Local News website: “We at the Manchester Evening News stand with the players, the fans and everyone else who – when they go on social media – are met, on a daily basis, with horrendous abuse based simply on the colour of their skin, their religion, their gender or their sexual orientation.”

This is not just about football, this is about the everyday victims in every community who are exposed to abuse because social media exists. 

We have made repeated entreaties to the tech platforms to act which have largely fallen on deaf ears. If this was happening on the streets, in pubs, in classrooms, or in workplaces, people would be arrested. Yet because people can hide behind the anonymity afforded by social media and post with impunity, without fear of consequence, they are emboldened to do so. We need a powerful momentum shift.

Just as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter have made those issues mainstream, we now need to ensure this is not a flash in the pan.

We, as media organisations, need to collaborate and work together to build on the momentum. And if there is a powerful organisation we can partner with – the football industry – maybe this is just what is needed to coerce the tech platforms into action.

And so to my third question. What about our staff?

If we are prepared to impose a social media blackout in support of football players, why do we continue to expect our staff to use social media knowing they are opening themselves to similar type of abuse.

I do believe it is right to expect staff to continue to use a valid business tool to market and promote our content to as wide an audience as we can. We put journalists in harms way to report without fear or favour. That is what we do. We send journalists to war zones, we send them to demonstrations and we send them to front up unsavoury characters in pursuit of our craft.

Social media has become an essential part of our business as technology has shaped our profession. So we need to ensure our journalists use it. But with that comes responsibility. And this is where we need to be confident we are taking the appropriate measures.

The Government last month issued its Plan to safeguard journalists from danger and from abuse. However, it is just that – a plan. Every strategy needs execution to be successful. If we expect our journalists to use social media and recognise that this means they will be subject to abuse, we must do everything we can to protect, safeguard and act to support them.

As a corporate organisation, journalists should know that we will take up instances of abuse with those platforms that allow it to be surfaced and force them to take it down. As employers, we need to put in place reporting mechanisms and support systems to help our staff who become victims of abuse. And as an industry we need to collectively call out every instance of abuse when we see it, no matter if it is directed against someone who is not on our payroll. We need to educate our journalists about how to block, mute and report abusive users. And we need to continue to lobby those tech platforms to take action – but now form more powerful alliances outside of our industry and even Governments.

There should be a zero tolerance to abuse – we would not stand for it in any other walk of life, but in the ether of the internet, it appears that it is ok. This has to change. And I hope that the action this weekend can force a sea change in opinion to galvanise a powerful coalition of organisations to shame Tech platforms to act.

This blog is my personal opinion: If you have an opinion about this, please feel free to email me jeremyclifford@celebratingjournalism.com

I write this with no joy, but the Society of Editors has got its position on the racism debate surrounding the Meghan and Harry interview on Oprah so very wrong.

The press this week has been accused of racism and bigotry in the way it has portrayed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – and particularly its coverage of Meghan.

Watching that interview on Monday I was shocked by the headlines selected to contrast the way Meghan has been reported upon compared with similar stories about her sister-in-law Kate.

Within the wider context of whether Harry and Meghan have endured racist treatment at the hands of the Institution of the Royal Family the couple levelled serious allegations about the racist and bigoted coverage they had suffered from the media.

I am not going to wade into that debate – and I am pretty sure the leaders of the SoE regret the way they did, too.

A firm and, in my opinion, arrogant rebuttal penned by Executive Director Ian Murray has made our industry as guilty as other sectors in our society of making a blanket denial about the existence of racism in their organisations.

The furore over the manner of his riposte has forced the SoE to backpedal and to say it will now reflect on the reaction it has provoked.

No doubt this was as result of the incendiary style of Mr Murray’s performance on the Victoria Derbyshire show this morning.

Contrast the flat denial of any problem with racism by Mr Murray with the rather more eloquent response penned by 160 journalists in reaction to the SoE statement issued on Tuesday.

His “nothing to see here” denial was an inflammatory response and missed the chance to discuss a very real issue in the wider media industry – representation.

The authors of the letter deplored the comments made by the Sussexes and held out the path the SoE should have set out.

“The SoE should have used the comments by the Sussexes to start an open and constructive discussion about the best way to prevent racial coverage in the future, including through addressing lack of representation in the UK media, particularly at a senior level.”

The sad thing is, the SoE has, in recent times, attempted to throw a focus on the lack of racial mix in our industry. I do not know what progress they have made on this, but I do know Mr Murray had contacted a number of senior editorial leaders to set up a working group to look at the problems we face in increasing representation in our newsrooms.

And so his response, which at times bordered on aggressive, on the Victoria Derbyshire interview, was a missed opportunity to say that we, as an industry, are acutely aware of the issues we face, and need to try a lot harder to face them.

Look at the facts, there is less than 10% representation of non-white journalists in our industry according to the Reuters Research Institute.

And that percentage dwindles even further when you look at the number of non-white people in managerial positions.

The Society of Editors, instead of embracing the issue of racism, portrayal and representation, have merely tarred our profession with the same brush that other institutions have used.

Have we learned nothing from Black Lives Matters and the need for balance, sensitivity, openness and humility?

Many journalists are distraught at the way they have been misrepresented and the way this issue has been mishandled.

Whether or not the press is guilty of racist coverage or not – it should be playing a far more educated and sympathetic role to inform, shed light on and campaign against racism and under-representation in all walks of life.

And that is why journalism has not been well served this week.

If you have a view, write to me at jeremyclifford@celebratingjournalism.com

Postscript: Ian Murray has now resigned from his position – however, the written response from him was approved by the SoE and therefore, I believe the issues raised are still relevant and need to be addressed.