Southport 2011 was my second Delegate Meeting. My first was Southport 2009 (new window) when I attended as one of the student reporters. I returned this year as the student coordinator, looking after all of the students and editing their work before it was published on this site.
It’s amazing how much difference 18 months can make. It’s also amazing how much difference 18 months can fail to make.
There were some major improvements to the student coverage of Delegate Meeting (DM) this year, as well as some new obstacles and some old ones.
The Social Media Revolution | Technical Problems | Working Together | Old Wounds | Double Standards | Top
The Social Media Revolution
The major improvement this year undoubtedly came from the increased use – and understanding – of social media.
In 2009 the majority of the students were not active Twitter users, and Twitter apps were niche if non-existent. A marked contrast then that this year one of the first things we got the students to do was download Tweetdeck.
The majority of them were already seasoned Tweeters, but I don’t think anyone had truly anticipated the practical applications Twitter would have.
It did, as expected, help the students to deliver live updates of what was happening on the conference floor to an audience who could not be there themselves. But it also enabled them to check in with us editors without having to run backwards and forwards between the Conference Hall and the training room, affectionately named the “Bunker”.
This was particularly helpful when myself and Rosie Niven where forced to retreat to the foyer of the adjacent hotel in order to get a decent WiFi signal.
It also allowed them to communicate quickly between each other: making sure they weren’t stepping on each others’ toes, checking facts and names and requesting images.
The use of Twitter was an out-and-out success.
The Social Media Revolution | Technical Problems | Working Together | Old Wounds | Double Standards | Top
Technical Problems
The use of the internet however was a very different story.
Back in 2009 the only main consumers of the Conference Centre’s WiFi was the student reporters, and even then they had not been consuming much.
In 2011 every laptop, netbook, phone and MP3 player was vying for a share of the Centre’s limited supply and the facilities just could not cope.
It seems to be a sign of the times that a reporter is only as good as their WiFi signal. There were a lot of things the students would have liked to have done but they simply did not have to connection to do it. Even to update the website with just the basic posts we had to beg, borrow and steal an internet connection.
Word from the National Union of Students’ National Conference is that the WiFi in Newcastle also leaves a lot the be desired. If nothing else, at least we’ll be prepared for connection failures next time around.
The Social Media Revolution | Technical Problems | Working Together | Old Wounds | Double Standards | Top
Working Together
Credit to it, the internet worked fantastically to our advantage before DM. Unlike in 2009, this year’s students all arrived in Southport already Friends.
That is meant in the true social media sense of the word: on Facebook.
In 2009 we all befriended each other after DM. The 2011 bunch had begun getting to know each other long before they arrived, and it showed.
They didn’t lose half a day sounding each other out. Instead they went straight to it: reporters pairing up with photographers, interviewers with producers. Everybody knew who had the skills they didn’t and felt comfortable enough to ask for their assistance.
As a result more was achieved and the whole vibe amongst the students felt friendlier and more at ease.
They were impressed by the professionals but also felt welcomed by them. And, more importantly, felt they were being taken seriously as journalists in their own right.
The Social Media Revolution | Technical Problems | Working Together | Old Wounds | Double Standards | Top
Old Wounds
There was one notable exception to this. Notable to me anyway as it opened it an old wound from the last ADM.
On the first day of DM a motion was brought forward by the Equality Council reminding members that “the union has a zero tolerance policy towards sexual harassment at the workplace and with union structures”.
The implication piqued the interest of the students, to the extent that one of them wanted to do some more research into the matter. She felt that if it was as serious as the speakers made it out to be then it should not be swept under the carpet. Responsibly, she spoke to her editors before beginning. We said go for it.
She went for it, and was met by staunch opposition from the very women who had previously been so outspoken on the topic.
She was told not to cover it: that if it got out it would present the NUJ in a bad light, that it was best left alone. I know, because I was given the same arguments.
There was no fiery speech (new window) this year to throw the gauntlet down. Instead it was a dispute that rumbled on in the corridors throughout DM and in inboxes afterwards.
It was a dispute that ended with the young student reporter admitting she felt too intimated to continue researching the article. Not by chauvinistic men, but by the women who should have been fighting her corner – by women who should have been championing her to expose the horror of sexual harassment.
Last ADM it was cameras on the funeral pyre of freedom of expression. This year it was hushed up sexual harassment. The NUJ’s code of conduct says members should “strive to eliminate distortion, news suppression and censorship”. In this case, they did the exact opposite.
The Social Media Revolution | Technical Problems | Working Together | Old Wounds | Double Standards | Top
Double Standards
I find this particularly striking, not just because it is not the sort of behaviour I expect from NUJ members, but because it is the sort of behaviour the NUJ campaigns against when students’ unions try to suppress student media.
My role as a Sabbatical Officer at my Students’ Union is a conflicted one, being at once the Vice President in charge of Communications (the Alistair Campbell-in-chief) and the newspaper editor. But I have never, and will never, say to a student reporter “do not write that story, it will put the Union in a bad light”. Were I ever to, I would expect the NUJ to back up my reporter.
I have never because I believe, almost above any other principle, in the right to freedom of expression. It is why I believe in the NUJ because, as I perceive it, it may disapprove of what you have to say, but it will always defend your right to say it.
It angers me to think a young member does not feel this applies to them.
The Social Media Revolution | Technical Problems | Working Together | Old Wounds | Double Standards | Top
5 comments
No ping yet
Peter Murray says:
April 15, 2011 at 10:12 am (UTC 1)
A thoughtful report, Lizzie – but I hadn’t expected the sting in the tail. I’m shocked that NUJ members put the student under such pressure not to pursue the investigation – and I share your indignation!
For next DM, the union will really need to sort out the WiFI.
Thanks
Pete Murray, past President.
Alan (fred) Ppipes says:
April 15, 2011 at 11:29 am (UTC 1)
It was my first DM too and it was all quite bewildering at first – but as soon as I discovered the #nujdm hashtag it began to fall into place! The student tweets added a whole new dimension to the conference – even if you were sitting in the hall!
John says:
April 17, 2011 at 12:03 pm (UTC 1)
Don’t see this as a cover up. Those involved in the complaint chose not to speak further, as is their right.
If there were grounds to suspect they had been “got at” then it would indeed be worrying. No reason to believe that from what I see here.
A victim chooses not to speak? Live with it. (Or ask elsewhere if you don’t respect their position.)
The twitter experiment was fascinating to see in action. It could be an excellent tool to send information rapidly to members who cannot attend (but also to anyone else with a web connection who wants to look in – confidentiality could soon be an issue.)
The student journalists did an excellent job of reporting rapidly and exploring the possibilities of the medium. That accuracy was sometimes a little lacking just highlights the difficulty when speed is the highest priority.
That applies to all media and it will be interesting to see how live updating evolves from this very strong start.
Collette McColgan says:
April 18, 2011 at 1:52 pm (UTC 1)
Just for clarity, I don’t believe it was actually the “victim” in the complaint that chose not to speak to the reporter, rather those who proposed and supported the motion who wished to keep the subject matter buried.
Rosie Niven says:
April 18, 2011 at 7:29 pm (UTC 1)
I concur with Collette’s clarification.