Civil Council’s Statement on the Appeal Regarding BGTW
SUMMARY:
The circumstances of the second appeal to the Civil Council could not be more different than the first. In short, The British Guild of Travel Writers (BGTW) was challenged by a member of the Civil community whose primary thesis is that while BGTW may be a serious and upstanding organization, it is not a newsroom as defined in the Civil Constitution. His challenge did not prevail in the community vote which decided to keep BGTW on the registry by a ratio of 82–18. The original challenger then appealed that outcome to the Council on the same grounds as his original challenge.
The question in this appeal is whether the community erred in finding that BGTW qualified as a newsroom under the Civil Constitution. Specifically, the question is whether a trade association of journalists whose site is primarily dedicated to member services and not to featuring journalism qualifies.
Our conclusion is that BGTW does not qualify. The council voted 8 to 1 in support of the appeal. This decision overturns the community decision. BGTW will be removed from the registry.
BACKGROUND:
The Charter: The British Guild of Travel Writers (BGTW) defines itself as a “community of accredited writers, photographers, and broadcasters; the trusted body for independent editorial comment and expert content on worldwide travel”. Its charter states: “Pick up any national newspaper or travel magazine and you will find our work. Turn on the radio, switch on your computer, fire up your mobile phone and we’re there. We’ve been to every corner of the globe — and written about it, photographed it, spoken about it. From a luxury cruise ship to an off-the-beaten-track hostel, we’ve done it”
Its members all appear to be highly qualified journalists who engage in travel reporting. The quality and legitimacy of their work is not in question. You can read the BGTW charter here and navigate to its website here.
The challenge (and appeal): The challenge took exception to BGTW’s charter in his summary statement “Though the members of the British Guild of Travel Writers are reputable journalists, this site is not a newsroom” as defined by the Civil Constitution. He goes on to say “The reputation of the Registry is the most valuable asset we have, for it is on that front we will be judged; the success of the whole enterprise hangs in that balance. To allow onto that Registry a site which is not in fact a newsroom at all dilutes that integrity and would call into question the seriousness and value of the entire project.” You can read the entirety of the challenge here. And his appeal further down that same page.
Response from BGTW: The BGTW does not dispute that it is not a traditional newsroom. During a discussion that took place on the charter page, it confirms: “This website is more of a forward-facing ‘corporate website’, used to disseminate information to applicants, prospective sponsorship partners and the like.”
However, the organization does publish members’ work: https://bgtw.org/category/news and https://bgtw.org/category/features.
On this basis, BGTW argues, those represent an “archive of paid-for work, written and edited by professional and accredited journalists, and I would therefore argue that this absolutely constitutes a newsroom”
A hearty discussion ensued among the community. We’d encourage you to read it for yourselves by navigating here and scrolling down. The conversation is impressive in its seriousness and thoughtfulness. In large part it points to some of the inadequacies or limits of the Constitution
VIEWS FROM THE CIVIL COUNCIL MAJORITY:
The council struggled with this decision in no small part because the BGTW principals and members appear to be serious about journalism, which deserves to be rewarded. I would go so far as to say that many made their decision with regret.
Though our written conversation was wide ranging, I’ve attempted to compress it into three areas.
What is a newsroom?
Several council members pointed out that the ”definition of newsrooms keep changing especially in this digital era”. Wrote another: “At one level, collectives, solutions, kick starters, self-publishing networks, cooperative networks and heck, even Medium, are all new forms of “newsrooms” that are evolving and emerging in the digital era.” The consensus was that we should take a flexible approach to format.
One Council member pointed out the absence of “commonly accepted definitions of a newsroom”, on the BGTW site with the “usual accoutrements: an editor or two, some level of hierarchical scrutiny of the work being done (fact checking, for ethics, for meeting that organization’s own standards; for redress; for corrections).”
Another concern was purpose. “It appears that the intent of BGTW was not to produce original journalism but to showcase what its members do as a byproduct of the association. That BGTW is made up of ethical, professional journalists does not mean that it set out to operate as news platform” Simply put, said another, they are “a guild, whose main purpose is to serve its membership on professional matters”
The council recognizes that BGTW’s “members” do produce some original material, in the news and globetrotter sections. But as one council member pointed out, those are not “journalistic in nature; they are marketing BGTW events and work of members”. Had the newsroom mostly been abouyt featuring the work of its members, at least one Council member might have voted differently.
Limitations of the Civil Constitution.
The Council members expressed some frustration with the confines of the Civil Constitution and with the challenge process itself. “What we really want is not to overturn the community decision, but to qualify it with remedial requirements. Raises the question again of whether there should be a grace period to relieve any challengers or the community of losses while some of these foundational questions are worked out”.
Wrote another “I do think this challenge exposes some of definitional and structural gatekeeping that should have been in place on CIVIL for BGTW to be accepted as a newsroom in the first place or a way for asking them to address the MVP needs of a newsroom. They are welcome to come back if they — at least on paper — provide those answers.”
Another wrote that she hopes it might serve as a caution to others. “In the opinion (we must) make clear the result that we’d like to see and put other newsrooms on notice that this is the standard: the newsroom has to exist primarily for the purpose of producing and distributing journalism to the public.”
The path forward:
Several council members would welcome BGTW to revisit their practices and perhaps evolve the site into a newsroom with an editorial structure in place to serve an audience. Alternatively, BGTW can encourage its individual members to create their own small newsrooms and reapply.
BGTW themselves telegraphed this path “If better distinction is required, between this ‘corporate’ website and a more newsroom-focused website, I would of course be very happy to look into platforms that could help me to create a separate newsroom… Ooh, maybe Civil would work?!”
Indeed, it might
VIEW FROM THE CIVIL COUNCIL DISSENT
I valued the quality of discussion all throughout here. These are some important questions. I disagree (about overturning the community vote) I don’t think the standards of a newsroom according to the Civil Constitution clearly exclude sites like the BGTW. I would definitely entertain a tightening of the definition to raise the standard of the news sites admitted, but I don’t think that as newsrooms are currently defined, I could justify ratifying the challenge. There are several sites currently on the Registry that aren’t necessarily built around providing public-service journalism as their first mandate and rejecting this one in response to this challenge feels as though it opens the door to rejecting others.
The second calculus for me is that we have a signal from a community that seems to have thoughtfully engaged with the question, and to overturn that without a clear violation of the Constitution seems suboptimal. If BGTW had clearly stepped beyond the bounds of journalism in its work, I think I’d feel differently.
Where I agree that I we may want to place tighter strictures around acceptance onto the platform in the first place. If the Registry is intended to be a well-curated set of journalistic exemplars, clarity up front around what we mean by a newsroom could help enforce a higher quality threshold.
