Public Interest Journalism Working Group minutes: 22 September 2021

Attendees and apologies

• Allan Rennie, University of Stirling (AR)
• Rachel Hamada, Bureau of Investigative Journalism (RH)
• Frances Rafferty, NUJ (FR)
• John Toner, NUJ (JT)
• Denise West, media consultant (DW)
• Hans Marter, Shetland News (HM)
• Jonathan Heawood, Executive Director, Public Interest News Foundation (JH)
• Joyce McMillan, independent journalist (JMcM)
• John McLellan, Scottish Newspaper Society (JMcM)
• Stuart Birkett, Highland News Media (SB)
• Rhiannon Davies, Greater Govanhill (RD)
• Simon Cuthbert-Kerr (SCK) (secretariat)
• Hazel Parkinson, Scottish Government (HP) (chair) 
• India Divers, Scottish Government (ID) (secretariat)

Items and actions

The meeting was chaired by HP. The list of attendees can be found in Annex A.

Officials thanked Jonathan for his work editing the final draft of the report, the original drafting group and the wider group for their comments.

The meeting would be spent going through the changes proposed by correspondence and considering any additional comments outside these changes. Officials would then outline the next steps.

On pages 1, 2 and 3 some sections had been moved further up in the document including the definition of public interest journalism. The group agreed this was a robust definition and were happy with its position in the document.

It was noted that all changes in version 4 of the document had been agreed by correspondence so this meeting would be confirming several minor changes which had been suggested.

There had been a revision to the background section to acknowledge that broadcasters originate news stories but that online and print publishers create the bulk of original news stories. The group agreed they were happy with the wording.

It was raised whether the grantmaking section should set up the funding criteria. It was noted that there was a failure in industry around diversity so that it was important to address it. The group agreed that this addition should be kept. It was suggested that the word “diversity” should be changed to “representation” as it was less about ticking boxes and more about representing society. However, it was felt that the word diversity was clearer as the word “representation” could be interpreted to mean political representation. The group agreed to keep the wording as “diversity”.

It was noted that there were broken links in the footnotes. A last check and proofread was needed.

Action:

• officials to do a last check and proof read of the report including checking the links

Updated marketing spend figures would be available from Friday so these could be added into the document. The figures should be accompanied by a sentence providing context that the figures do not reflect a normal year due to Covid-19.

Action:

• officials to circulate figures and suggested draft line for the group to approve

It was noted that the group had not fully discussed the topic of charitable status. The group agreed they were happy to keep it in.

It was acknowledged that due to changes in membership that a representative from ICNN had not fed into the final report. The group felt that the report was in line with ICNN’s views and did not expect them to oppose the recommendations. As Emma Meese had contributed to the formation of the recommendations, the group decided it was appropriate to move forward with the report. 

Action:

• the report will be sent around all members for a final sign off

The report was the result of a team effort, it represented a consensus.

Action:

• officials to stress the point that the report reflects a group effort and the collective opinions of the public interest journalism sector when they send it to Ministers

Officials provided an update of next steps. Officials were looking into getting the report designed but needed to work out costings and what budget was available. Officials will engage with colleagues across different policy areas to get their views on the recommendations and how to take them forward. Officials will send the report to both Ministers with advice. They will recommend that the working group continues to meet. Officials will look at what is possible in terms of Comms around the report.

Action:

• officials to reach out to Comms colleagues to ask how the report can be promoted

Officials confirmed that the report and the Ministers’ response would be published as two documents so the group’s report will not be edited before publication.

The group wanted the report to be published before the response from Ministers. It was noted that it was protocol for Ministers to see the document first before it was in the public domain as the group was established by Ministers.

The group were concerned about a delay and did not want Ministers to commit to a position in opposition of the recommendations which they would not be likely to change. It was noted that SCK was moving to a new policy area and the group were concerned that this would have an impact on this work being taken forward.

Action:

• SCK to inform his replacement of the important work of the group which should be taken forward  

The group reiterated the importance of the report being published before the response.

Action:

• officials to consider the groups points and check protocol. Officials will come back to group with what is possible

Over the next two weeks Officials would have conversations with colleagues in order to prepare advice. They would then put their advice to Ministers and give them a week to consider the recommendations and advice. It was expected that the report would be published by the end of October.

Members agreed that it would be valuable to schedule a date for a meeting at the end of October to check in with Officials’ progress.

Action:

• secretariat to schedule a meeting for Wednesday 20 October

It was noted that there was no title for the report yet. “Securing a sustainable future for Scottish public interest journalism” was suggested.

Action:

• members to make a decision on the title of the report by correspondence

The working group asked if members could meet separately without Officials present. Officials could not see a problem with this.

The group wanted to present their report to Ministers.

Action:

• officials to speak to Ministers to see if they would find it helpful to chat to the group about the report

Summary of actions

• officials to do a last check and proof read of the report including checking the links
• officials to circulate figures and suggested draft line for the group to approve
• officials will send the report to all members via correspondence for a final sign off
• officials to stress the point that the report reflects a group effort and the collective opinions of the public interest journalism sector when they send it to Ministers
• officials to reach out to Comms colleagues to ask how the report can be promoted
• SCK to inform his replacement of the important work of the group which should be taken forward
• officials to consider the groups points and check protocol. Officials will come back to group with what is possible
• members to make a decision on the title of the report by correspondence
• secretariat to schedule a meeting for Wednesday 20 October