quick question to the camp organisers: do these restrictions (flags, set tours, &c) apply to indymedia journos?

I think the writer of the last comment does not understand what Indymedia is. It is an open news reporting service allowing people to report their own news. Thus every person on the planet is an Indymedia reporter!

>I think the writer of the last comment does not understand what Indymedia is. It is an open news reporting service allowing people to report their own news. Thus every person on the planet is an Indymedia reporter!

surely they're only +potential+ indymedia reporters - after all, most people on the planet don't actually report for indymedia, do they? but to agree with you just for the sake of argument, are you suggesting that everybody there should carry the flag? if participants in the camp are uploading reports onto indymedia, why shouldn't they be bound by the same rules as other journalists? the whole separation of journos and non-journos seems to directly contradict the indy-ethos, that's my point.

looks like this NUJ person has got completely the wrong idea about the type of event this is - 'professional journalists' can't wander round the camp as they please any more than they can wander round your house

journalist access to any activities outside the camp depends on the imagination and determination of each journalist!

Who is working for who?

"Somehow or other (to be clarified) there would be a review of the
day's pictures and a selection of these would be put on the Climate
Camp website with high resolution versions available to corporate
media. These would not only be offered free, they'd want a Creative
Commons license embedded."

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-photo/2007-July/0730-ax.html

can be contacted directly at
Tel: 020 7843 3700
Email:  johnt@NUJ.org.uk

(from the NUJ's own website)

Your link is to an e-mail dated 30th June. It goes on to say:

"I personally think this is a great opportunity to document a project
that might turn out to be a turning point in history. So I'm quite
prepared to be flexible on the rights issue for a stab at posterity
as the C21st Dorothea Lange or whatever, but it'll be for each to
decide whether to accept what I guess will emerge as a group,
non-negotiable license".

The phrase "will emerge" is important here as it wasn't, and isn't written in stone.

I have to say that I find it distressing that on an issue as important as that represented by Climate Camp, so many people appear to be more concerned with being able to flog a few pictures to the Evening Standard.

There is no reason to think that a hostile (or just lazy, looking for an angle) journalist would magically become more sympathetic if given full access to an event. If the event is newsworthy, it will get news no matter how restricted the journalists' access is.

On the other hand sometimes the more material they get, the more they can use to concoct (or pad out) a false and hostile story. It happened at the G8 in 2005 and if given the chance, it'll happen again.

Watch for stories like these next to the holiday adverts next week:
"Hypocrite Hippies boast of flights to Brazil"
"I saw groups plotting havoc"
"Extremists Behind the 'Fluffy' Exterior"
"Hopeless So-Called Anarchists Can't Even Decide on Dinner"

This letter is on the frontpage of the NUJ website.

I really think there needs to be an explanation of who wrote the letter, who signed it, and who approved it for the frontpage of the NUJ website.

"by allowing the media more open access you will impress all journalists, and even those you consider hostile to your aims will have something positive to report about the event.”

HAS THE NUJ GONE MAD????

Since when did giving access to the press ensure positive coverage?
They are free to do as they choose.

Several posts have expressed a sensible view on this - that it's the most progressive media policy to date of any event like this - and as such the NUJ SHOULD BE SUPPORTING IT, not attacking it.

QUESTION: Should journalists be given access to all business meetings in the city of london?
QUESTION: Should journalists be given access to all internal NGO meetings?
QUESTION: Should journalists be given access to all of the climate camp meetings?

NO.

Simple as that.

(the other point people hace made about the camp being home to many people for a week is equally valid)

DO some journalists put others in danger by co-operating with the police to hand over pictures and footage after demonstrations? YES.

DOES the NUJ often criticise this? YES.

IS it right that campaigners and activists are suspicious of the press? YES.

It really is sad that the NUJ has come out to make such a public attack on this years media policy. Clearly they do not understand the context behind it. If I were an NUJ member I'd be ashamed.

In a large meeting two weeks ago the media policy that allowed around two hours for daily tours of the climate camp site by mainstream journalists was approved unanimously

A counter proposal was put forward by an NUJ perrson, which proposed that there should be no restrictions at all placed on access for tv / photo / print / radio journalists. When the room was asked who would support this the propser was I think the only person to raise his hand. One against almost 50.

Now it's sour grapes and let's go for the story.

Clearly the NUJ were participating in the creation of the media policy for the Camp for Climate Action, but when they didn't get it all exactly their way they've turned around to rubbish the policy.

Not good.

The NUJ have to walk a tricky line between upholding the right to report and protecting people's privacy. In this case they would do better by working to ensure the right to report in a situation which will see Section 44 stop and searches and other legislation used by the police to supress reporting around the Climate Camp. And that's a much bigger issue.

"Clearly the NUJ were participating in the creation of the media policy for the Camp for Climate Action, but when they didn't get it all exactly their way they've turned around to rubbish the policy."

That is a lie and as misleading as suggesting that John Toners letter represents the views of the NUJ membership.

There was a person who made a counter proposal which was unanimously rejected by all present at the climate camp meeting and while I have no idea whether that person is a member of the NUJ or not, I do know that there where several other NUJ members present and went along with the climate camp media teams proposals and not the 'open access' counter proposal. I should also point out that the counter proposal also contained restrictions on access so it's really only a mater of degree between them.

This whole debate is crazy since this years media policy is more open than last year and the modifications have come around not due to complaints from mainstream media but from inside the movement itself in order to address a lack of self documentation of the camp. Last year, while the mainstream media could tour the camp taking pictures, 'alternative' media was discouraged by a policy that effectively prohibited use of cameras on site even while the FIT photographers took pictures with high powered zoom lenses from the fence line.

This years policy is designed to increase quality documentation of camp life while balancing convenience to reporters and the privacy and safety of camp participants. The policy has been formulated in an inclusive and democratic way which perhaps the leadership of the NUJ fails to appreciate. While John Toner may claim to represent the NUJ under the mandate of being elected at some point by some small proportion of the membership, that's certainly less democratic than the process by which the camp for climate action agreed it's media policies.

well, i see that no-one, not even the camp organisers, have bothered to answer my simple question about whether indymedia reporters will be bound by the same rules as the rest of us. if not, then it's clearly pure hypocrisy. indymedia should be fighting these draconian conditions tooth and nail - that is, if it cares at all about open publishing.

the argument that the camp will be the participants' "home" or "place of business" is complete rubbish. it's a demo, people, on public land and no-one has any right to impose conditions on what journalists can and can not report on. i understand that some activists are paranoid that the media won't follow their line, but these conditions are just going to alienate every journo in the country and guarantee negative coverage even from sympathetic reporters. the nuj has every right, indeed the duty, to complain about this - the job of the union is to stand up for the interests of its members and that is exactly what it's doing.

also, this all makes it look very much like the camp has something to hide and the talk of blacklists and special access for sympathisers is straight out of karl rove's playbook - well done for turning into what you're fighting against! if you're too thin skinned to handle a bit of bad press then you have no business being involved in a project like this - just think about the kind of repression that activists in other countries, such as colombia, have to put up with. and, by the way, what would you do if you spotted a journo filing copy from the camp, physically throw them out? sorry, but all this makes the whole movement look childish and pathetic. grow up!

Just tell the hacks that they will be 'embedded' with the activists and that for the sake of their own security they will be told where to go, what they can see and what they can report. After all if they accept these restrictions in Afghanistan and Iraq they can accept the same restrictions when covering protest events. If they don't like it tough!

I assume you are a photographer rather than someone who writes for a living?

Why are you asking questions here of the Climate Camp - have you tried contacting the media team directly? It seems to me you are more interested in mudslinging than actually getting an answer. Many of the previous posts have been quite informative.

Are you aware of the immense pressure on those organising the camp at the moment and the vast strain the media/networking team have been under. Some are good friends of mine and exhaustion doesnt cover it. Stop taking pot shots at activists working on their own time to make a difference.

Is it that you seeking are the right to go around photographing/recording people at the camp at whim? What is wrong with you abiding by the rules already agreed with? Is it that you see yourself as somehow superior to other journos because you are someone who does stuff with Indymedia? It is not up to the media you or otherwise who decides how the camp is to be run. Your statements on the nature of the camp only show up your ignorance of what it actually is and that you have failed to investigate it's nature further. The media is not the be all of everything; open participation does not mean open recording and there is more to the whole thing than getting ones name/face in a report. There is much more to action than being media friendly or having a camera around.

I want to be able to wander around the camp without worrying about my face appearing in a newspaper friendly or not (have had it there enough times and I'm happy to live without that experience), or having to watch every word I say as some friendly 'journalist'/indymedista might right it down for a story. No fucking way am I wanting to be on a camp where assholes from the Mail or the Sun have unlimited access.

If anyone is being childish, take a look at your own tantrum at being told that you cannot do as you want. The Camp for Climate Action is organised on open participation principles - were you involved? Where have you addressed the concerns of those who are engaged in actions where they do not want the media to record them, or their the fact that they have personal issues being recorded full stop. The rules are there to strike a balance - why are you trying to deny others that balance? Why are you trying to deny others their rights. Its a two way process 'we the media'; you are demanding it all goes your way.

Is it you who have been filling John Toner's ears with stuff and nonsense about the Climate Camp?

Hi 'We the media'

You seem to have failed to properly read and understand the Climate camp statement near the top of this page, It debunks many of your critisims before you wrote them. You have also obviously failed to take on board any arguements or facts offered by other posters. Instead you have jumped to your own conclusions, choosing to write sensationalist, factually incorrect statements such as 'but these conditions are just going to alienate every journo in the country' when there are clearly messages of support of the policy from NUJ members in the same thread.

I can only assume that you are the type of journalist that they are not going to bend over backwards to help.

So which are you? Daily Mail or Evening Standard?

Not bothering, goodbye, hope your actions go well, but there'll be no film from me this year, I think this press control is the most ludicrous thing I've ever seen you lot do. Egomania is a word that comes to mind.

One down

I will so miss it if you dont do a film about us (though could you remind me what fabulous output you made for us before) as will simply invalidate everything we do if there is no media to record it. I mean, there was no cameras at the fabulous crop trash that rendered the UK crop free once more, but hey, it all means nothing because there was journo there... All those centuries of pointless actions because nobody thought about inventing a digital camera to record it. What a sad waste.

media uber alles... I think fucking not

I'm left feeling that 'one down'/'we the media' is one less parasitic journo who thinks they are more important than the actions they cover. Sorry mate if it hurts your ego to face up to this, but the reporters are not bigger than the story. Media is but a tool. Every video a construct from conception - that is one of the first things you learn at film school, isnt it? The Camp for Climate Action is more than a media spectacle, so take the ego on a hike back to Islington.

'we [sic] the media' seems to have had plenty of answers and had s/he bothered to read the agreed media policies or take part in their formation then perhaps they would not have wasted our time asking such a stupid question. The media policy makes no specific reference to indymedia 'reporters' and I'm sure that indymedia would have it no other way since the concept of indymedia reporters is contrary to the ethos of breaking down the divide between participant and observer. So, the question of whether indymedia is covered by the 'same rules as the rest of us' is pointless - just read proposal 4 of the media policy, which was accepted unanimously.

"indymedia should be fighting these draconian conditions tooth and nail" - why? The policy is great improvement on last year in terms of facilitation of grassroot publishing and you must have been asleep last year if you think any different.

"the argument that the camp will be the participants' "home" or "place of business" is complete rubbish. it's a demo, people, on public land and no-one has any right to impose conditions on what journalists can and can not report on."

It's not a demo, it's a camp, a gathering of like minded people on private land and the media policy has nothing to do with imposing conditions on what journalists can and can not report on.

During the G8 in Scotland, only accredited press where given access to press conferences and the media center and those applying for accreditation were vetted by the police. Obviously somebody thought there were security issues to consider and that these outweighed the freedom of the press. Where was the NUJ's outrage when I was refused accreditation? Where was the letter from the NUJ's leaders standing up for the interests of their members?

I find it amusing that the NUJ should be making a fuss over the climate camps media policy (which as many have pointed out, if far more open than last years) while completely failing to protect it's members interests in industrial negotiations during the last few weeks. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, right now the NUJ seems to be a remarkable job of alienating it's own membership, especially photographers.

And it's that kind of comment that leads to many of us saying goodbye. You don't even know who your friends in the media are these days, and the attitude projected that certain journos believe they are more important than the story is ridiculous. Yes some do, but they'll be the ones already on the inside, undercover, from Daily Mail and other lovely publications, probably involved in arranging these media guidelines, so they won't have to pay anyone for the material, making Murdoch a very happy bunny, saving a few pounds.

The journos I know and work with continue to do most of our work for free and try to get by however we can. We do it because we care and want as many people to know, learn and understand. But we all tarred with the same brush, told not to take pics because activists have removed their masks, yet don't seem concerned about the five teams of FIT not ten feet from them filming and photographing every last one of them. Not wise, pretty damn stupid.

Remember who your friends are, who you come to when you need legal material, and don't burn your bridges.

All this has done is draw in more of the nasty parasitic press who are intent on rubbishing the entire operation and try to get you all labeled terrorists.

Big mistake people.

@ Wind up merchant: you assume incorrectly, i'm not a photographer. good joke, though.

@ FTP: i asked one question of the climate camp (well maybe two if you count "what are you gonna do to enforce these rules?") which dealt directly with how these rules will affect indymedia reporters. climate camp organisers have already responded to other issues on this post yet don't seem interested in answering this one, which is pretty relevant to people who hang out on this site. any attack on journalism is to be resisted - especially by journalists - even if it's an attack from the "good guys." you should all be taking what the NUJ is saying seriously, not arrogantly dismissing it out of hand.

i have no interest in mudslinging, only an open and comradely discussion in order to reach a higher truth. i am not knocking anybody, only this ridiculous policy that doesn't even make sense - as if it's going to have an effect on reducing the amount of malicious coverage. i'm sure that the media team are working very hard and hats off to them, it's an exhausting and thankless task, but so what? i wasn't taking pot shots at them anyway, they're just implementing a stupid and unworkable policy.

please don't try the old strawman argument on me, i'm not suggesting that anyone should have "the right to go around photographing/recording people at the camp at whim." that is a completely different issue. part of the problem is that the rules make no distinction between active journalism, eg taking pictures or shorthand, and just participating in the event, which is after all public. they also don't make any distinction between written and other forms of journalism. there's a big difference between putting time and location restrictions on recording and banning individuals outright purely because of their profession, which is actually discrimination.

i am also not a fan of abiding by rules that i don't agree with and i certainly am in favour of arguing against them. of course i don't see myself "as somehow superior to other journos because" i'm "someone who does stuff with Indymedia" but i find it peculiar that advocates for open publishing are seeking to limit access to information in this way. i have no interest in deciding "how the camp is to be run" but i object to being banned from participating - because of my job - unless i have a proven track record of sympathetic coverage. and let's be honest, the rules are really talking about paid, professional journalists, ie the ones in the NUJ, so the rules are basically bashing the NUJ. and you're surprised that it reacted? we all have the right to report about what's going on, that's our job, and it's wrong to impose draconian limitations on that (such as banning us from the camp unless we toe the line).

just to repeat, it's perfectly possible to put limits on photography and recording without humiliating us media workers with flags (what's next, bells?) so stop with the "unlimited access" strawman.

and it's hardly a "tantrum" to stand up for your rights. you may not see it like this, but the right to report freely on matters of public interest is one that all journalists would defend to the hilt. it's irrelevant whether i was involved in the decision-making process, the point is that i believe that the policy is wrong and that we should all be free to say that without being attacked. i'm not suggesting that every participant should undergo a big brother-esque 24-hour media grilling, but let's be honest about it, any actions taking place probably (a) won't be in the camp and (b) will be comprehensively recorded by the media and the cops anyway. as for people who just don't like being filmed, well just ask not to be filmed or go to the "no filming zone" or wherever. there's no "balance" when it comes to issues such as freedom of the media, either you believe in it or you don't. and face the facts, there really is no right not to be recorded these days, especially if you're an activist at a public event - that's just the way things are. by the way, i've never met john toner, but there's enough nonsense about all this online already, he hardly needs my help.

@ Media watch: sorry, but the statement debunks nothing and deliberately ignores my original question. i understand how this policy was implemented and can even see it as in some way progressive, at least compared to last year, but i still think that it's wrong and damaging to the cause and none of the other posters have convinced me otherwise. i see my rights as a news-gatherer being severely restricted by this policy and i imagine that most other journalists will see it the same way (ok, maybe "every journo in the country" was a bit much).

i really don't care if the camp organisers "bend over backwards to help" me or not, but i do care about being effectively banned and unable to report freely on this exciting public event. as for who i work for, to be honest, i don't want to bring my employers into this (i'm having enough trouble with them as it is). i'm a staffer and have reported on grassroots activism for several years, many times for indymedia. i'm an active NUJ member and i happen to think that the union is right on this issue, certainly from the point of view of an organised body of professional journalists. if you can't see how this is a slap in the face to us then you must be blind.

@ unnecessary: actually i was thinking of coming down, but there's no way that i'm going through the flag & bell charade. i'll show my press card to the cops if necessary but the rest of you can fuck off!

@ who says?: sorry for "wasting" your "time asking such a stupid question" and for you finding it difficult to grasp what "indymedia reporters" are, but it's hardly "pointless" to ask whether people who publish on this site will be treated like other journalists at the climate camp. specifically i'm talking about the only one hour a day and with flags thing - i don't see what proposal four has got to do with that. but really i'm asking how you'd like it if you were banned from reporting on an event such as this and also pointing out the hypocrisy of making other people follow rules that you don't follow yourself.

the new policy may be a small step in the right direction but it still seriously flawed and it infringes on our rights as journalists. indymedia should be just as keen to challenge it as the NUJ. even if the camp is on private land, it's still a public event and a matter of public interest. so how can we report honestly and accurately on it if we're only allowed to be there for one hour a day? there are ways to reduce the power of your enemies in the media without ridiculing your allies, but you must understand that we've got a job to do and there's no way that we're going to let you tell us how to do it.

what none of you seem to grasp is that this will not do anything to stop the malicious coverage - in fact, it gives ammunition to those people who say that the camp's full of violent extremists with plenty to hide. do you really think that the mail and the rest won't be sending people "undercover"? please! this policy only reinforces the fears of confused middle england and allows the hacks to boast about beating the ban. it also runs against the libertarian spirit that i thought this movement was all about. embedded journalists and blacklists - how awful. but what i really want to know is how on earth you're going to implement this crazy policy? "hey, you with the camera, explain who you are and why we should trust you!" are you going to be ripping people's notebooks and blackberrys off them if you think that they're writing about you? we all have the right to report the truth and you are the last people who should be trying to stop us.

Hi everyone - on Thursday, the camp media team decided to revise the mainstream media access policy, within the principles agreed at the last London gathering. The new policy is below, along with an explanation of what has changed and why.

Camp for Climate Action 2007 media access policy

There will be a daily, hour long media tour of the camp at 11 AM from
Tuesday 14th - Friday 17th August inclusive. All journalists are
welcome to come on site at this time to conduct interviews, film, take
photos, and record. Journalists will be accompanied by members of the
media team, who will do their best to ensure that journalists have
everything they need for their story. Please be aware that
filming/recording meetings and workshops will only be possible at the
agreement of all participants.

The media hour is not the only avenue for the media to cover the camp.
There will be two off-site media areas, one directly outside the camp,
and an indoor space in the village of Harmondsworth. Interviews
can, of course, be scheduled outside the media hour. We will also be
generating our own photo and video coverage of the camp, which can be
made available to the media upon request.

How and why has the policy changed?

We had previously intended to invite a small pool of jmainstream media journalists to live on site for two days in order to facilitate in-depth coverage of the
camp. This has proven to be untenable for several reasons:

1. The camp has become a big media story and we have been overwhelmed by
media interest. This has included many requests for extra or different
forms of access which we cannot meet.
2. The inadverdent creation of such a multi-tiered access system led
to criticism that we were attempting to control media coverage, which
was not the policy's intention.
3. We have not been able to find enough camp neighbourhoods willing to
host journalists living on site, which was one of the pre-conditions for
the longer access proposal.

So, let's be clear: there is no special treatment for any of the press.
Nobody is barred from the media hour, and nobody will be given extra or
longer access.

This policy is a compromise that attempts to provide reasonable media
access whilst respecting camp participants' right to privacy. Past
protest events similar to the camp have had a no-access policy, and last
year's media hour, which worked well for all concerned, was, we
thought, a major step forward. The proposed addition this year of
longer access for some journalists was intended as yet another step
toward fuller media access and more in-depth coverage. However, this
year's experiment in providing greater access has not worked for anyone.
The media team does not have enough people to do the job, journalists
saw a tiered system as unfair and many camp participants have declined the
offer of living for a few days with the press. So, we have revised and
simplified the policy, with fairness, equal treatment of all, and ensuring
that we have the capacity to deliver what we offer as our key principles.

The media team will do our best to make sure that journalists get what
they need, within the framework set out above. Please do be aware
though that we are facing multiple opposing constraints, and please bear
with us as we attempt to negotiate these pressures.

Thank you.

ok, so you believe that "there really is no right not to be recorded these days". Well certainly this country leads the way in CCTV and so on, but is that what should be encouraged?

Freedom? Libertarian? The right not to be filmed?

If, as you say, you've been covering such politics and grassroots activism for many years, then I'm at a loss to see why you find this media policy a problem, rather than a step in the right direction.

You say "there's no "balance" when it comes to issues such as freedom of the media, either you believe in it or you don't" - that's being a little disingenuous - if you go to a big festival there will be strict terms and conditions that say you cannot film / photograph without strict permission etc, if you want to interview a person from a company or ngo you make an appointment, sure you can doorstep them but that's outside, on the 'doorstep', indymedia people aren't free to stroll into the BBC newsroom for a week to watch what's going on and make notes.

You say "the rules are really talking about paid, professional journalists, ie the ones in the NUJ" but unfortunatly that's not true either - there's plenty of 'professional' paid journalists who are not in the NUJ - plenty of them in fact (daily mail anyone). The NUJ Code of Conduct look great when written on paper, but sadly all too many NUJ members do not adhere to them (see  http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=59 for those not familiar with them). I'd have much more respect for the NUJ if it enforced these.

You're perfectly correct of course when you say outside the camp on marches or whatever the media policy does not apply, and that's as it should be.

You also say "i find it peculiar that advocates for open publishing are seeking to limit access to information in this way" - which I find a very odd statement and one which I think seeks to deceive, enveigle and obfuscate to borrow a title from the x-files tv show.

btw the flag idea as I understand it is to clearly identify journalists onsite with cameras, since despite the site-wide camp policy being that _anyone_ recording anything should seek permission from those they record, journalists who enter on the tour will simply not seek that permission but will just snap away / film.

Also this blacklist concept is I think fair enough, if a journalist has written a hatchet job full of lies and personal attacks then why is anyone under any obligation to give them a second interview? As far as I understand it (after asking some people due to my initial concerns over this point) it is simply for the exception and not the rule, and certainly not against those who would criticise the politics or position per se. In the end the campsite is not a public body or government department, but a large group of individuals living together (eating, sleeping, working, learning etc) for a week.

Anyway, let's hope this discussion leads to a bit more understanding - there's certainly been some well written explanations here.

I suggest you contact the camp media people direct, that would be a more professional way to do things.

hello,

i just wanted to pass on my gratitude to the media team (and indeed, all of the working groups) who are working so hard to make climate camp happen.

the media team in particular have been under alot of pressure, so.... thank you.

love,

k

"you should all be taking what the NUJ is saying seriously, not arrogantly dismissing it out of hand."

You mean what John Toner says, not the NUJ. As has been pointed out, the NUJ membership hasn't been asked it's views on this mater and plenty of NUJ members have expressed contrary views. As for dismissing John Toners views out of hand, it would help if his views were consistent (he issued no similar complaint last year) and based on something other than third hand accounts of what was said at the last gathering rather than the actual agreed policy statements.

"this ridiculous policy that doesn't even make sense - as if it's going to have an effect on reducing the amount of malicious coverage..... i wasn't taking pot shots at them anyway, they're just implementing a stupid and unworkable policy."

The policy isn't designed to reduce malicious coverage as such but to avoid wasting energy on servicing journalists who are only aiming to rack people over the coals. The media team spent virtually all their waking hours last year talking to the worlds media (not just those who came to the camp) and no doubt the same will be true this year. The hour long on site access is intended to insure that visiting journos can tour the site and find people to interview with the least disruption to camp activities and the maximum of convenience to both the journos and the media team. It's got nothing to do with reducing malicious coverage.

"please don't try the old strawman argument on me, i'm not suggesting that anyone should have "the right to go around photographing/recording people at the camp at whim." that is a completely different issue."

A different issue? Isn't that the fundamental issue behind your arguement? the right of unfettered access to reports?

"there's a big difference between putting time and location restrictions on recording and banning individuals outright purely because of their profession, which is actually discrimination."

As far as I know, there is nothing in the policy about banning people because of their profession. There was however the option for the media team to exclude known assholes from the tours at their own discretion. As volunteers it was felt that they should be able to decide not waste their time talking to people known to have a disruptive and dishonest agenda. There is a limit to how many people the media team can show around the site and it would be a shame to waste time on arseholes.

"i find it peculiar that advocates for open publishing are seeking to limit access to information in this way... we all have the right to report about what's going on, that's our job, and it's wrong to impose draconian limitations on that (such as banning us from the camp unless we toe the line)."

I fail to see how this is limiting access to information and at what stage did the climate camp ever say it was an advocate for open publishing? Even assuming the advocacy for open publishing, what does that have to do with the media policy? The policy does nothing to restrict people ability to publish nor does it prevent anyone from reporting on what's going on. The limitations are nothing any genuine journalist would not have experiences or come to expect when obtaining access to corporate events and their public relations officials.

"let's be honest, the rules are really talking about paid, professional journalists, ie the ones in the NUJ, so the rules are basically bashing the NUJ."

Not true. For a start many journalists are not NUJ members. The NUJ represents only a fraction of journalists in this country and there will be many journalists from other countries visiting the site also. Secondly, the media policy also includes a general proposal about the use of camera's onsite and they apply not only to mainstream journalists but to everyone who might choose to pull their camera out while onsite.

"just to repeat, it's perfectly possible to put limits on photography and recording without humiliating us media workers with flags (what's next, bells?) so stop with the "unlimited access" strawman."

Yawn. The 'flags', or whatever method has been chosen to identify the daily media tour, is nothing to do with humiliation, it's about considering the wishes of those onsite who would chose to avoid being photographed and giving them the ability to move away as the tour comes round. It's a compromise for those onsite who would rather not have press there at all (which I agree is a stupid and impossible desire). Why would the media feel humiliated? It is again a completely normally and routine situation for press to be asked to wear badges or laminates etc while at events in order that they can be identified. It's also normal for the media to wear jackets with the word 'press' or 'media' on them. So what's the big deal here?

"i'm not suggesting that every participant should undergo a big brother-esque 24-hour media grilling, but let's be honest about it, any actions taking place probably (a) won't be in the camp and (b) will be comprehensively recorded by the media and the cops anyway. as for people who just don't like being filmed, well just ask not to be filmed or go to the "no filming zone" or wherever."

Without limitations on times during which the media are invited onsite to do interviews and film, a 24-hour media grilling would be a very possible outcome. What the media do outside of the camp is irrelevant to the camp media policy so why even mention it? And what is your suggested 'no filming zone' if not a policy restricting access to the media? You reveal yourself with your inconsistent counter proposal.

"there's no "balance" when it comes to issues such as freedom of the media, either you believe in it or you don't."

bullshit. You have just yourself suggested a restriction with your 'no filming zone' - a restriction that limits not only access to the media but also the freedom of movement and association of camp participants. There are clearly balances to be sought and yet again, any real journalist will have experienced and respect such balances. In fact, such balances are enshrined in the law of the land, it's called the right to privacy and the law seeks to find the correct balance to ensure the freedom of the media while protecting the right to privacy. What exactly do you think the freedom of the media entails? The freedom to tresspass, the freedom to tell lies, the freedom to intimidate? Obviously not.

"it's hardly "pointless" to ask whether people who publish on this site will be treated like other journalists at the climate camp. specifically i'm talking about the only one hour a day and with flags thing - i don't see what proposal four has got to do with that. but really i'm asking how you'd like it if you were banned from reporting on an event such as this and also pointing out the hypocrisy of making other people follow rules that you don't follow yourself."

Indymedia is meant to be about participants reporting their own news, breaking down the classic devision of roles and specialization. Certainly the one hour media tours are not intended for camp participants who might also be publishing on the indymedia platform - it's for people who have been sent to the camp to cover the story for their job and would appreciate the convenience of knowing there will be people happy to speak to them and answer questions rather than moody hooded anarchists complaining about having cameras shoved in their faces.

Likewise, the so-called 'embedded journalists' proposal (which was accepted with some difficulty) is also intended for people who's job is reporting the story rather than regular participants in the camp who might choose to take some photos. There was no such policy last year and the introduction this year is clearly an experiment at facilitating more in depth features about camp life while balancing the rights and expectations of those participating in the camp itself. This is a concession, not a restriction. Journalists wouldn't expect the right to move into and live alongside a group setting up a low impact intentional community without permission so why would they think it different at the climate camp?

Further more. The third proposal on camp photographers. This really has very little to do with mainstream journalists at all. It was proposed as a way of ensuring that the camp was well documented with high quality photos by people who saw it as their role to do this. It's not a restriction on the number of professional photographers who can come on site (that is handled by the daily tours), it's purely about ensuring that the lack of high quality photos of the camp experienced last year is not repeated this year. The insistence on the use of creative commons licenses on these photos is about ensuring free access to those photos by grassroots non commercial media, and it does not prevent the photographers involved from selling those photos to commercial users.

"the new policy may be a small step in the right direction but it still seriously flawed and it infringes on our rights as journalists. indymedia should be just as keen to challenge it as the NUJ."

Last years policy about onsite use of cameras was challenged by the likes of Indymedia users and others concerned about self documentation. This years policies have taken those concerns into account and go a long way to address those concerns while taking into account the large numbers of participants who don't want their every move scrutinized while in the camp. I'm quite certain that the indymedia network would be unable to reach consensus on challenging the policy while the NUJ, as a hierarchical body, doesn't have to bother with details such as wondering what it's membership thinks before it's leadership opens it's mouth.

"even if the camp is on private land, it's still a public event and a matter of public interest. so how can we report honestly and accurately on it if we're only allowed to be there for one hour a day? there are ways to reduce the power of your enemies in the media without ridiculing your allies, but you must understand that we've got a job to do and there's no way that we're going to let you tell us how to do it."

Of course! Those who would choose to hide their identity and agenda will be able to move freely around the camp and the new more liberal policy regarding onsite cameras will enable such individuals to take pictures or film fairly openly. There is little that could be done to prevent it although unlike those journalist who join the tour they may well experience a level of harassment should they piss people off. Assuming they go unnoticed, they'll be free to listen in on whatever they choose and quote and misquote as normal. However, those who want to do interviews and ask questions as journalists would find it far more convenient to simply book through the media team and go on the site tour.

"what none of you seem to grasp is that this will not do anything to stop the malicious coverage"

If you were at the meeting at which this was all discussed you would know that everyone is fully aware that the policy will not stop malicious coverage and it does not attempt to do so. What you don't seem to grasp is that the policy is about enabling the media to do they job while respecting the wishes of those who don't want the media in their faces the whole time.

"it gives ammunition to those people who say that the camp's full of violent extremists with plenty to hide."

That ammo would be invented anyway. How many times have we experienced reports of open public meetings being 'infiltrated' by a crack team of undercover Sunday Times 'reporters'. Since when have such journalists worried about the facts.

"we all have the right to report the truth and you are the last people who should be trying to stop us."

You want the truth, start by speaking it. There is nobody stopping you from reporting on the climate camp and your are misrepresenting the situation and the policy. Little wonder there is so little respect for the profession of journalism.

Just read all of this, some very good points raised and good responses.

Now can we all get on with doing our jobs - trolls excepted.

The media do what they do for the money, therefore they are ultimately controlled by capitalists and perpetuate the system that is warming the world. Climate Campers, on the other hand, are not doing it for the money. When cameras and journalists are around they change people's behaviour and perceptions. The media ARE the system because the
system is made up of how we think. In order for people to think, feel and act in new ways it makes perfect sense to keep Rupert Murdoch's whores at a safe distance and control them. I used to be a Murdoch Whore, so I should know. As someone who will not be attending the camp I can honestly say that Climate Camp's policy towards media access seems very generous and accommodating in the circumstances. Good luck to Climate Camp and respect to all the people who have worked under trying circumstances without pay or glory for months to make this year's camp happen. Bristol David

hi all, i'm at work right now (what a sell-out!) so i can't answer all the points raised, but it comes down to this: the policy rules clearly state that no journalists - whether they are photographers, broadcasters or plain old scribblers - will be allowed onto the site except for one hour a day (with flags) unless they have a prior record of sympathetic coverage. this is just not on. i think that placing limitations on recording participants is appropriate given the way that the mainstream media have distorted the issues in the past and the sensitive nature of some of the camp's tactics, but it isn't appropriate to ban us from attending purely because we happen to be journalists, which is what the rules say no matter how you want to spin it. for people on this site to be defending these draconian restrictions to reporting as well as the journo/non-journo apartheid is absolutely mindblowing. but that's just my opinion, feel free to call a parasite or troll or whatever.

But you have not once addressed the other issues raised! You maintain the point that you have some automatic right which is not the case. Your are the one trying to take away rights, not the climate camp. Your position is not logically tenable. I assert my right not to be photographed by the media if I dont want it and a space has been set up so that I can avoid it. What you are seeking to do is to deny me my right to privacy. The Climate camp and its predecessors, stirling, tree camps, etc have always had that right.

Freedom of the press does not mean unrestricted access where-ever the press feels like going. When the media reports the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then I'll reconsider, but until then the media needs to be treated with the same wariness as an corporate / government organization.

You on the other hand are offering nothing in return.

@ unnecessary: i'm not trying to deny you your right to privacy, not at all, and i have specifically argued against unrestricted access for photographers and broadcasters. all i'm saying is that professional journos shouldn't be banned from attending the camp apart from an hour a day for a couple of days just because of their job. we have the right to report freely on matters of the public interest and indymedia should be defending that. note, i'm not saying that we have the right to take pictures of people who don't want to have their picture taken. as for what i'm offering "in return," that has nothing to do with my rights as a reporter whatsoever. the whole world doesn't revolve around you and your camp, you know!

>> the policy rules clearly state that no journalists - whether they are photographers, broadcasters or plain old scribblers - will be allowed onto the site except for one hour a day (with flags) unless they have a prior record of sympathetic coverage. this is just not on.

WRONG! (and I ask the indymedia moderators to hide your misinformation and lies before anyone else reads it and takes it as fact). Read what has been posted by the media crew and you will see that the final media policy doesn't contain the 'embedded' journalist proposal put to the last gathering and that prior sympathetic coverage is not a prerequisite of attendance.

>> it isn't appropriate to ban us from attending purely because we happen to be journalists,
>> which is what the rules say no matter how you want to spin it.

WRONG! (and a contradiction after what you just claimed). Again, read the actually media policy and you will find no mentioning of banning journalists and there is no spin in arranging a media hour for people up to talking to the media to show journalists around the camp.

>> for people on this site to be defending these draconian restrictions to reporting as well as the
>> journo/non-journo apartheid is absolutely mind blowing. but that's just my opinion,

You are welcome to your opinion but nobody reading it is obliged to agree with you. When the counter proposal was put the the gathering everyone listened but not one person back it, not one! People on this site don't all sing from the same hymn book (as your presence testifies) so don't try to apply the same brush to us all when suggesting we should all believe the indymedia doctrine that there should be no divide between journalist and participant. As a working journalist I am surprised you'd defend indymedia's desire to abolish the divide between independent observer and the participant, that's certainly not a position backed by the NUJ.

What is really mind blowing is that you would think that the camps media policy is draconian and I wonder just what kind of reporting you've done before in the real world as I could tell you dozens of examples of far more restrictive policies.

whether or not the embedded journalist and blacklisting policies have now - thankfully - been abandoned, the fact the remains that journos are only allowed in the camp for an hour a day and accompanied by a flag-waving minder. please correct me if i'm wrong on this, but i can't find the "final" media policy online. all i can see is this from  http://sionphoto.blogs.com/sionphoto/2007/07/news-from-the-g.html

>Media wanting access to the camp will be invited to come on site between 11 AM and 12 noon. All visits will be over and journalists off site by 1 PM at the latest. Journalists will be given a tour of the site, accompanied at all times by two (or more) members of the media team, who will carry a flag to make the journalists/photographers identifiable. Journalists will be required to stick with the tour and will not be allowed to go into marquees or meetings and workshops unless invited at the agreement of all participants.

>There will be no journalists on site on Saturday, Sunday, or Monday. This action period will be covered by a separate media strategy. The media hour will occur at the media team’s discretion, if it seems appropriate, on the final Tuesday.

>Journalists will be encouraged to book in advance. Some journalists will not be allowed on site (eg. those with a previous record of hostile coverage of the camp/other activism). The decision to not allow these journalists on site will be made on a case by case basis – anyone involved in the camp is welcome to suggest names journalists to “black-list”

pretty clear, huh? now, if some of this is out of date, please point me to the updated policy, but it looks like the idea is that NO JOURNALISTS WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE CAMP apart from at certain times and under certain conditions. this is not acceptable! did you even read the above post from the climate camp organisers talking about the revised policy? it says that the media can come in during the media hour and are otherwise only allowed to be in the media area OUTSIDE the camp. that's a fact. go ahead and ask the mods to hide my posts if you can't handle the truth or a good debate.

all professional journalists who would like to cover the story in some capacity are effectively banned from the camp apart from at very limited times and with several conditions attached. we are not allowed to attend the camp as participants if we intent to write about it afterwards. that's another fact. so stop spinning this as if the media policy was somehow put in place to facilitate good reporting - it wasn't and it won't. and please provide a link to the actual (final) policy if you have one and we can clear all this up completely. by the way, it may surprise you that not everyone in the NUJ thinks the same way about every issue and i personally very much agree with the "be the media" philosophy. other people don't - it appears that you're one of them.

Jesus! who's spinning?

We The Media (a very singular we by the looks of it) seems to be doing all the spinning here. Would you please just shut up long enough to read the actual policy that has been adopted rather thab posting shot from some blog.

So you assert a right to privacy. This is universally agreed with caveats.

So assert and are granted the right to protest. This is garanteed with caveats.

This thread conjoins the two and invents a new 'right' - the right to protest in private!

You have no such right.

The campers are not demanding the right to protest in private, that's nonsense. The camp is meeting, a conference, a series of workshops, skill sharing, discussion, a chance to work, play and eat together, share dreams, plot, conspire and act. It will be our home for a week and within that week we'll obviously also be going off to protest and take action. The camp may also be a practical demonstration of ways we might reduce out carbon footprints but that doesn't mean we have to open the doors to 24/7 media intrusion. We exert our right to choose who enters our home and workplace just like other people and organisations do everyday. What on earth makes some sections of the media think that their right to report the news is greater than our right to choose who we bring into our homes?

"Police to use terror laws on Heathrow climate protesters"
 http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2146692,00.html

"Camp for Climate Action 2007"
 http://www.met.police.uk/communities_together/docs/community_information_briefing.pdf

You may need a few of us independent journalists about next week!

I understand the Climate Camp media team amended their restrictions (which are still piss-poor) from their original surreal flag waving regulations after the NUJ complained, and I've even heard similar complaints from people in groups like Globalise Resistance and Plane Stupid.

Now a Guardian newspaper journalist, who was offered what the Climate Camp thought was a nice little on-site 'embed' deal, has told 'em to get stuffed because their current restrictions are bang out of order - so a cosy little stitch-up between the Climate Camp and the big bad MSM was bolloxed because even 'one of them' had more principles than the Climate camp media shambles.

The Climate Camp and its apologists had the nerve to get on their high horse about the MSM while all the time they were trying to sort out a deal with one of the UK's biggest newspapers, and using the restrictions as a convenient excuse to prevent other 'competing' journos from reporting.

But wait, it gets better...

One of the main Climate Camp media co-ordinators responsible for the press restrictions is a photographer who shoots advertising campaigns for Volkswagen and HSBC Bank!

Classic!

I'm a full-time photographer. I've photographed all kinds of protests and actions for over 15 years now, and I have to say the Climate Camp media 'guidelines' are a complete crock of draconian shite and are being accompanied by some of the sorriest piss-poor excuses I've ever heard.

The only other people who try on rubbish like this, are organisations like Saddam Hussein's Ba'athists, the SLORC in Burma, Nu Labour, the Pentagon...and BAA.

Congratulations, you're in distinguished company.

Just because you're on the side of the angels doesn't cut you any slack when you behave like two-faced Alistair Campbell wanabees - the more the Climate Camp media people and their apologists squirm and make weak excuses (Privacy? It's not your home - the clue is in the name 'Climate Camp'), the more obvious it's becoming that the media team is performing an excercise in self-serving censorship and 'news management'.

In terms of the press restrictions, you're defending the indefensible, and no amount of democratic open decision making legitimises a result that fundamentally contradicts the process used to bring it about.

You don't 'openly' vote for censorship, or to create BAA-style 'reporting zones' and expect people not to see the glaring contradiction.

An independent non-MSM photographer colleague who specialises in covering protest (and who has refused the embed/pool censorship 'offer') told me he was turned away from the Camp this morning, only to see MSM telly crews wandering about inside.

Presumably this is AFTER the photographer had already dodged various police roadblocks and checkpoints, not to mention the injunction...only to get exactly the same BAA-style treatment from the Klimate Kampf Obersturmbannfuhrers.

So independent journos and photographers get the elbow, but people working for Volkswagen and Sky News get in, right?

I've read through all the comments and noticed that not one commenter appears to have signed off with their real name. Not gonna look good on the CV? Bad for the mortgage application perhaps?

Hang on while I reach for my gasmask, because the stink of hypocrisy and cowardice from the Klimate Kampf media apologists is making me gag.

This may just be me but I'm more scared of the tabloids than I ever am of the police camera teams. I don't want to be photographed, falsely described as an extremist or a terrorist and have dirt dug about me. The media can make my life much more uncomfortable than the police camera crews who are probably not going to arrest me.

You'll be there as a really hostile action. You will be looking for any weaknesses to make a good story. Anyone who has psychiatric or drugs problems, anyone with a history. We'll all be under a kind of interregation to try and turn us into the public fallguys for your black-and-white reporting. Your aim is to humiliate us amongst our communities, to publically disparage us and to deter people from doing similar.

Do you understand why I don't want to put myself through this? I don't want to be the Daily Mail's hate figure of the day. I know people believe that shit, that's why they buy it. We are individuals - we are not big and strong enough to be able to cope with you. You can and will destroy some individuals and seem to behave without any code of ethics.

On a more cheerful note lets look at today's media coverage. The BBC news website has climate camp as one of its top stories.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6943084.stm

The main story seems to be that it's two days earlier than expected. This is not the case as both climate camp and even the met police press release linked to above say that the camp will be set up early. (logically this would have to be the case anyway).

Why is this a story? Don't you even read the press releases you are spoon fed? I suppose this is one up from blindly regurgitating them which seems much more common..

I fully support the freedom of the press, but they seem not to respect my freedom in return. Reading the news and comparing it to things I know about is never a happy occasion. Many people get their sole news about the way the world works via the media and yet you generally get it wrong, report with no sense of history, repeat press releases and demonise little people. Why on earth should we change our ways of working to accommodate you?

"This may just be me but I'm more scared of the tabloids than I ever am of the police camera teams"

Why? You haven't been shagged by a Big Brother contestant...have yer?

So being smeared in a tabloid is like, a deal-breaker for you? You're saying the only thing between you standing up for the planet is being bad-mouthed in some rag?

From the moment you leave your house, you'll be on CCTV. Then the Police FIT people will photograph you from every angle when you enter and leave the Camp. Then the chopper with the nosecone mounted mega-telephoto hi-res video camera will get your face from the air.

No amount of dodging, pontificating and pseudonym-ery is going to stop you from being watched.

So if you really are as hardcore as you think you are, you'll be a complete idiot to be even at the Camp. As far as the Police are concerned, the Camp is gonna be 'UpdateOurDatabaseFest' and there's not really a damn thing you can do about it.

Then to top it all, you might get lucky and end up as a 'GURNING MUG OF HATE' in some paper.

The question is then...is that going to stop you?

Anyone who is up for protest, but only as long as their ideological opponents 'play fair' is either being stunningly naive, acting out some kind of revolutionary fantasy in their own heads, or should really question their principles.

Rejecting the MSM, then getting all bent out of shape when they slag you off, is just hypocritical ego-wanking. Some MSM sources are probably ALWAYS going to slag you off - so there's no point worrying about it - it shouldn't matter a jot to you if you bump into Richard Littlejohn and Jeremy Clarkson warming a spud over the camp fire and taking the piss. Or taking the piss from a distance.

Why? Because it's totally irrelevant - if you're secure in your principles. If not, you end up twisting yourselves into all kinds of knots spinning your message, and trying to convince people you don't have the same 'news management' policies as Nu Labour and the Pentagon.

The Climate Camp restrictions are censoring your friends and using your enemies as the excuse.

"I fully support the freedom of the press, but they seem not to respect my freedom in return."

Too bad. The freedom of the press means the freedom to slag you off.

That's what freedom means. It's supposed to apply to everybody, not just to you and your embedded mates.

Nice one! 'Aunty Christ'....ooh, stop, me sides are splitting. Where did you learn that razor-sharp wit?

Cambridge University Footlights?

Yet another wannabee revolutionary T-shirt terrorist thinking they can order people about. It never takes much provocation to bring out their inner cop.

I can't fuck off to my tabloid, I don't work for one. Mind you, with your epic command of language, I'm sure there'd be a job for you at the Daily Sport.

We can't have it both ways - great media cover (that's happening already, before the camp even gets properly going!) and total privacy. However, I personally don't want to get cosy and chatty with a journalist, only to find a lovely hatchet job done on me and my friends in the tabloid rags (this happened to my friend). I'll be hiding in my tent!

Tonight the police tried on a mass incursion into the camp. It was reported by the Press Association, but their report is second-hand, because like all media, they'd already been told to piss off from the Climate Camp site.

There were photographers on the site earlier (doing the one hour Climate Camp zoo tour), but by the time this happened, they'd been told to leave by the Camp media team.

If the police incursion had turned into another Battle of the Beanfield, you'd have been bolloxed. Nobody would have known or cared.

You can't have your cake and eat it people.