Resort Journalists Take Strike Action

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Resort Journalists Take Strike Action
Regional Press at a Glance
Press Still Using Bogus Language to Report Asylum

Declaration by the Cuban Revolutionary Government

National Union of Journalists members at the Blackpool Evening Gazette, Fleetwood Weekly News, and Lytham St Anne's Express are taking strike action today (June 11) over pay. NUJ organisers report that the journalists are objecting to a new pay structure which would leave fully qualified senior journalists on the weekly papers on just over £16,000 – compared to a national average wage in Britain of nearly £26,000. Seniors on the daily paper earn just £17,600 per annum. Trainee journalists start on as little as £11,000.

            The NUJ points out that in 2002 the Blackpool papers made a profit of £2.9 million – a rise of 28 percent on 2001. This represents, they say, a profit of £15,000 per worker. Their parent company – Johnston Press – made record profits of £128 million pounds in 2003.

            The journalists will be picketing their offices in Blackpool, Fleetwood, and Lytham St Annes.

            They have named Tuesday June 22 as their second day for strike action.

            In a separate action, NUJ members at Coventry Newspapers – part of Trinity Mirror – are balloting for industrial action over pay. The management are refusing to negotiate because they say the union is not recognised. In 2001 the NUJ had a certificate from ACAS confirming membership levels at over 50 percent.

            Journalists are waging an on-going battle to ensure that their work receives appropriate recognition, as is evident from the bulletins WDIE receives from NUJ organisers on a regular basis. For example, journalists at Newsquest (Bradford) have had to struggle for over a decade to secure an above-inflation rise for all staff for the first time, and this has been the case at all Newsquest centres across the country.

            As NUJ Organiser Miles Barter put it: “People … want to work as journalists but fewer and fewer are able to afford to. I would urge everyone to join and help make the campaign for fair pay even stronger and to work with colleagues to help tackle other problems such as long hours, the poor sick pay scheme, and chronic understaffing in some offices”.

            Regional journalists very often work hard to give fair, adequate and accurate coverage of the conditions of life and the struggles of working people and the issues which they face, which can be in stark contrast to the disinformation, bias and diversion that is the stock-in-trade of the monopoly-dictated national media.

            We are reproducing some facts and figures on the regional press.

Serving the Community:

The regional press is the backbone of Britain's media, read by the vast majority of adults every week and considered to be the most trusted, responsible medium of all. There are 1,300 regional and local newspapers in the UK today, including 25 mornings (19 paid-for and 6 free), 75 evenings, 21 Sundays, 529 paid-for weeklies, and 650 free weekly newspapers. Regional newspapers are an integral part of their communities, championing local causes, spearheading campaigns and fighting on behalf of their readers. From the largest regional daily to the smallest rural weekly, regional and local newspapers embody the identity of the villages, towns and cities they serve.

Source: NS database/Reaching the Regions; Henley Centre; TGI, Future Foundation.

Changes in ownership:

Over £6.8 billion has been spent on regional press acquisitions and mergers since October 1995. The top 20 publishers now account for 85% of all regional and local newspaper titles in the UK, and 96% of the total weekly audited circulation. There are 96 regional newspaper publishers, 47 of whom own just one title.

            The most recent ownership change was the acquisition of Independent News & Media's London and Kent titles by Archant in January 2004 for £62 million. This followed their £52 million takeover of 12 other Independent News & Media North London, East London and Essex titles in December 2003.

            Earlier in 2003, SMG Publishing was acquired by Newsquest Media Group for £216 million. In 2002 Hill Bros (Leek) Ltd were sold to Northcliffe Newspapers Group Ltd and Scottish Radio Holdings acquired four Scottish titles from Johnston Press. Johnston Press meanwhile acquired Regional Independent Media's 53 regional newspaper titles in a £560 million deal. The acquisition made Johnston Press the fourth largest regional press group in the UK (previously no. 5)

            Before that the most recent major acquisitions and mergers occurred in 2000 with the sales of Newscom to Newsquest Media Group, Adscene titles to Southnews and Northcliffe Newspapers, Belfast Telegraph Newspapers to Independent News & Media, Bristol United Press to Northcliffe Newspapers Group, and Southnews to Trinity Mirror. Consolidation has left the industry in the hands of the regional press "specialists" who have reinvested heavily in their core newspaper businesses.

Source: NS Intelligence unit Note: all figures include the London Evening Standard, Metros, Daily Record, Sunday Post and Sunday Mail, unless otherwise stated.

Circulation:

Regional press sales exceeded £675 million in 2003, with nearly 41 million regional paid-for newspapers sold and over 29 million free newspapers delivered every week.

Source: NS intelligence unit; Advertising Statistics Yearbook 2003.

Readership:

British people are among the most avid newspaper readers in the world. 84.5% of all British adults (40 million people) read a regional newspaper, compared with 70.5% who read a national newspaper. Since 2000, regional press coverage has grown by 2.3%, and total readership has increased by 883,000 readers, while national press coverage has fallen by 4.3% (-1,489,000 readers). Regional press has a high solus readership; 29.8% of those who read a regional newspaper do not read a national daily. Readership of weekly paid-for titles alone have grown by 14.8% over the past 10 years.

Source: BMRB/TGI 2003.

Employment:

The regional newspaper industry employs around 34,000 people. Nearly a quarter of these are editorial staff.

Source: Business Choice, Future Foundation.

According to the RAM Project (Refugees, Asylum-seekers and the Media), Newspapers and magazines across Britain are breaching the Press Complaints Commission’s guidelines on reporting asylum on average every day – and some terms are now being used even more frequently than they were before the PCC spoke up.

            The RAM Bulletin for June reported that last month the term ‘illegal asylum seeker’ – which the PCC highlighted as an example of “misleading or distorted terminology” – was used by journalists and columnists seven times, and ‘bogus asylum seeker’ was used on 26 occasions. Offenders include the News Of The World, The Sunday Times and The Guardian – all of whose editors are on the PCC’s Code Committee – and the Daily Express – whose editor Peter Hill is a member of the PCC.

            Guardian Readers Editor Ian Mayes said that the use of ‘bogus asylum seeker’ in a headline last month had been “a complete lapse” and “was against Guardian policy”.

            There is also evidence that both terms are now being used more frequently than before. In the month immediately prior to the publication of the PCC guidance, they were used by journalists and columnists 16 times – half of the 33 times they were used last month.

May 28, 2004

As everyone knows, since it has been given wide coverage in the press, a very hard battle was fought yesterday, Thursday 27 May, in the discussion of the final document in Guadalajara. It was a battle against the stubborn intransigence of the European Union, which obstinately opposed a paragraph that strongly denounced and condemned the monstrous murder and torture practiced against Iraqi prisoners.

            Humanity had not seen such disturbing images since the dismal days of Hitler at the end of the Second World War. Billions of people were able to see these images on movies and television screens, on the Internet and in newspaper photos, and were particularly horrified by the ghoulish delight and brutal sadism with which these acts were carried out. The methods used showed contempt and disdain for the culture and feelings of the Islamic peoples of whom there are 1.2 billion that through the Old Testament share some ethical and historical roots with Christianity and Judaism.

            The paragraph on this subject, initially proposed by Latin America and the Caribbean, read:

            “We strongly condemn all forms of abuse, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment used against prisoners of war or any prisoner or against any one, no matter where or by whom it is committed. We declare ourselves to be dismayed by the recently documented examples of this behaviour which are completely unacceptable and deserve our strongest condemnation. Such practices are and must remain forbidden at all times and in all places. In this context, we call on the governments concerned to impose all legal sanctions to all those responsible and call on them to ensure compliance with the ban on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in accordance with the UN Convention against Torture and with the Geneva conventions. Such practices constitute a serious violation of these international instruments”.

            The European Union completely refused to mention the subject or to include it in the Final Declaration. Then, as it found itself obliged to give up some ground, it refused to mention the word “torture”, labelling what had happened “mistreatment”. Later, it refused to talk about the recent cases of torture of Iraqi prisoners using a non-specific formula to condemn them, and most carefully avoiding any mention of the governments responsible for this torture. The discussion between the president of the European Union and deputy foreign minister Bruno Rodríguez, the second head of the Cuban mission who was leading our delegation at that point, was very heated and controversial.

            Resigned to defeat, they finally accepted the word “condemnation”, but in a general not concrete sense, in reference to recent events, which they called only “mistreatment” of prisoners.

            The fact that the subject was addressed at all and that much of the initial paragraph was included is considered a huge moral defeat for the European Union.

            Those who on this occasion were opposed to this condemnation represented countries which witnessed the Nazi concentration camps where millions of people died either because of their race or their religious beliefs. Now leaders of these countries yield to neo-Nazi methods, ideas and dangers which are a thousand times worse because of the almost infinite power of those who propound them, that is, the extreme right which is in control of the U.S. administration.

            The second big battle took place in the afternoon of Thursday 27; this time between the Cuban delegation, headed by our foreign minister, Felipe Pérez Roque, and representatives of the European Union on the thorny issue for the Europeans of the Helms-Burton Act and the new, recently announced measures against Cuba.

            The paragraph approved in the morning session yesterday Thursday 27 by the Latin American and Caribbean countries read:

            “We reiterate our strong rejection of the use of unilateral, extraterritorial laws and measures that run contrary to international law, the freedom of the market, shipping and world trade. We agree that these measures represent a grave threat to multilateralism. We voice our profound concern about additional measures which reinforce and expand the scope of such policies and laws, for example, the Helms-Burton Act, and we therefore urge the government of the United States of America to cease using such laws and measures. We reject the use of coercive unilateral measures by any state whatsoever, since they jeopardize the sovereignty of other states and violate the principles and aims of the United Nations”.

            The European Union, acting once again as the U.S. government’s ally and underling, responded to this clear and strong rejection of the United States government genocidal Cuba policy by presenting this timid, ridiculous proposal:

            “We reiterate our firm rejection of all unilateral measures that run contrary to international law, including those which are extraterritorial in scope and run contrary to the commonly accepted rules of international trade. We agree that unilateral measures that run contrary to international law represent a serious threat to multilateralism”.

            In another fierce debate in which our foreign minister hurled accusations at, argued against and rebutted the European Union representatives position they, demoralized and devoid of authority, prestige and arguments proposed a new formulation.

            This is how it then read:

            “We reiterate our firm rejection of all unilateral measures that run contrary to international law, including those (new measures) which are extraterritorial in scope and run contrary to the commonly accepted rules of international trade. We agree that unilateral measures that run contrary to international law represent a serious threat to multilateralism. We remind people of the stance taken in Resolution UNGA-58/7 of 18 November, 2003”.

            The Cuban delegation opposed this maimed, ridiculous and cowardly proposition with all its might, since our country is today under threat from the murderous plans and the set of interventionist and genocidal measures announced by Mr. Bush last May 6

            The European Union then agreed to mention the title of the resolution which Cuba introduces in the United Nations General Assembly and which reads: “The Necessity to Put an End to the Economic, Commercial and Financial Blockade Imposed on Cuba by the United States of America”.

            The European Union representatives, seething with arrogance and irritation at the strong Cuban response, threw down an ultimatum: either this formulation was accepted or they would not allow the paragraph to be included. The Cuban foreign minister rejected this ultimatum with the utmost dignity and replied that Cuba held to its position that these measures must be specifically condemned and that if the paragraph were to appear as drafted by the European Union, Cuba would prefer that there be no reference at all to the subject in the Final Declaration, but that the European Union would have to take full responsibility for it not being included. Here we are omitting various details in order to be brief.

            What Comrade Fidel said in point one of his Message to the Mexican People was fully confirmed:

            “The European Union’s complicity with U.S. crimes and aggressions against Cuba as shown by its disgraceful, hypocritical behaviour in Geneva and its shameful understanding and connivance with the Helms-Burton Act whose unacceptable, ignominious extraterritorial nature make it unworthy of being taken seriously by our people.”

            Another victory was to come later that evening and night. The European Union, giving all sorts of reasons, had already refused a week earlier to allow the principles of international law enshrined in the United Nations Charter to be included in the Final Declaration of this 3rd summit, although they had been cited and agreed to at the two previous summits. At small, secret meetings Europe’s representatives had explained that they could not put their signature to these principles because they were unable to acknowledge that the principle of non-intervention was still valid. There had been an earlier clash between Cuba and the European Union over this issue.

            In fact, the most important discussions had been taking place around these essential principles for several days. The European Union consistently tried to offer to exchange our agreement to not mention these principles in the Final Declaration for other of our interests, including a reference to the Helms-Burton Act. They even went so far as to state this publicly. They had requested that this paragraph be the last one to be discussed. And that was agreed to. Yesterday, as the night was drawing to a close they were so demoralized after the debate over the Helms-Burton Act which lasted for hours that they lacked the strength to enter into a second debate with our country’s delegation which might have jeopardised the very existence of the whole document.

            It was under these circumstances that the European Union, unexpectedly and just when it was the Cuban delegation’s turn to address this subject, requested permission to make an announcement: it was withdrawing its opposition to any reference to the abovementioned principles, which had already been accepted in the previous two summits.

            It is the view of many delegations that this was the most important battle at this summit.

            Our small country, which has been blockaded and attacked for 45 years, a victim of all the crimes of which the empire is capable —the same that rules the destinies of the world and consists of the most powerful state in history— did not hesitate to resolutely oppose it and its allies in the European Union. The latter have played a truly disgraceful and shameful role year after year, seconding the lies, invectives and perfidious resolutions the Empire uses in Geneva to justify the blockade and to destroy that which can never be destroyed: our Revolution.

            It may be fair to indicate that not all the States that are members of this Union are the same. There are countries with a long history and influence, such as France and Germany, and other smaller states, such as Belgium and Luxembourg and several others who were the driving force behind a reasonable idea which was met with sympathy by the world: the idea of encouraging a union of European peoples after the terrible experiences they went through after the Fascist assault on humanity in 1939 that used methods and concepts which, by the way, differ very little from those proclaimed in the doctrine of being ready to launch surprise, pre-emptive attacks on 60 or more countries. There is nothing strange in the maniacal opposition to an international court empowered to judge war crimes nor in the terrifying, sadistic images of torture which recently shook humanity.

            The United Kingdom was always reluctant to join this union and still is not part of the common currency; it tries to get all possible advantages and avoid any drawbacks. Today, it is the enthusiastic ally of the current U.S. administration and joins in its adventures and wars of conquest.

            Others, like the government of Italy —and until very recently that of Spain— servilely put the empire’s plans before the true interests of the rest of Europe. Today, the United States allies, who are opposed to the group favouring greater independence, are getting reinforcements from new members like Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Slovenia that are now the staunchest allies of the very empire which has hegemony over the world and intends to subdue Europe completely to its political and economic interests.

            The European Union is in fact much divided and the United States has a large majority there. The Union is still not a union. If this is not understood, it would be very difficult to explain how a group of 25 nations, many of them with long-standing historical and cultural traditions, could act in Guadalajara like a flock of lambs under Washington’s thumb.

            We sincerely wish all their peoples a better fate. In fact, countries like Cuba and other revolutionary third world countries that are prepared to die defending our sovereignty, our dignity and our liberty are also fighting for Europe’s union and its independence.

            The future will have the last word.