by Emma Maier
A couple of weeks back I asked social workers about their experiences of working with journalists: did their bosses let them speak to the media, had they been interviewed, what were journalists like? It was pretty clear from the conversation that ensued that journalists were not terribly popular among Community Care readers.
This week, I took a call from an Observer journalist. (She was quite different to the Sun reporter I spoke to recently, but that's another story). She was shocked by social workers' views and was moved to respond - and she gave me permission to share her email in this blog.
The journalist, the Observer's chief reporter Tracy McVeigh, contacted me after hearing about Community Care's Stand Up Now for Social Work campaign, which calls for better media coverage of social work and support from employers and government to boost public perceptions of social work by sharing positive success stories and promoting professional respect.
Tracy was interested in the fact that social workers had had enough of the poor coverage and, as a profession, are gearing up to do something about it.
But when she read comments on the CareSpace discussion forum she was disappointed: many had not spoken with journalists, but nevertheless asserted that journalists were paid to be charming, were often unscrupulous and were only interested in making money. Talk centred on evading the media rather than engaging with it.
She has composed a reponse and has some helpful tips for those who want to talk to journalists but are nervous:
I would like to write a story about how, led by Community Care's campaign, social workers are beginning a fight back to regain their reputation and how so many professionals are affected by the attention that cases of bad practice and tragedies get.
But I see that, despite there being a forum discussion on the site where people are discussing "journalists" as if they are aliens, that six media requests actually asking for views from social workers have not had a single reply.
Does standing up not mean being counted? I'm a reporter, albeit not especially charming, sadly. I care about accuracy, and would get reprimanded - and be embarrassed - if I got anything wrong in print. There is a roll of shame on our reader's editors page for corrections and appearing there is no badge of honour.
To do my job I need to talk to people who have experiences that matter to the subject I'm writing about. Not all local authorities ban their social workers from talking to the media, in fact very few.
You don't need to be trained - you just need to take your time, think about what you want to say and if you don't feel comfortable on the phone then take questions by email and write down your replies. Keep a copy and make sure the reporter knows you've done so if you're really worried.
This mythology is a terrible state of affairs for both sides.
Please, if anyone would actually like to offer some comments on why they believe we have so many vacancies in social work posts across the UK or about how they feel social work is viewed by the public at large then I would be delighted to put in my story.
Thank you. with best wishes, tracy.mcveigh@observer.co.uk
Social workers are often judged by members of the public and by journalists - people who know little of what social work involves, yet have ready-made opinions about the effectiveness and value of those who work in the profession. It is this sort of deep-rooted bias that causes many of the myths and negatives perceptions of social work.
But not all journalists work this way. There is a bitter irony in the fact that the same social workers who complain of being stereotyped and demonised by the press respond by tarring all journalists with the same brush. In doing so they not only throw away any chance of brings some balance and perspective back into meida coverage of social work, but actually start to become part of the problem.
That's why Stand Up Now for Social Work is calling for local authorities and social workers to take the lead and talk about the vital work that they do.
Links
Ten reasons why it is vital for social workers to speak to the media
Discuss your experiences of journalists and Tracy McVeigh's comments on CareSpace
Email Tracy McVeigh
Of course journalists are people too! But seriously, the major issue I have is that we are actually barred from speaking to journalists directly as a matter of our contractual terms and conditions. That's actually the main reason I wouldn't respond to requests - that and having such a massive amount of work to do in any given day that there is little leeway for chats.
I expect the unanswered media requests are a result of either direct contact away from public forums (as most leave email addresses) or because local authorities look down on direct contact.
And I think it's a bit rich for people to say 'Oh, poor journalists.. tarred by the same brush'. It's hardly on a parallel with being doorstepped by the News of the World.. just for doing your job..
Of course there are some amazing journalists - it doesn't help to stereotype - in fact, we are taught that very early on in our training - but is it really a surprise to find it that way?
The point around the contratural situation is very intereting.
I spent yesterday at the ADASS Spring Seminar and lots of directors told me that they wanted to see more positive images of social workers in the press and supported the idea of their social workers talking to the media.
Yet your comment suggests that there is clearly a gap between the rhetoric and the realities. I took the opportunity to ask directors about the contractural issue.
The consensus was that such clauses are used by many authorities to control rather than ban contact with the media. They said the clause is designed to stop staff going to the media without first seeking permission from the authority - but that if permission is sought, in most cases the authority would allow social workers to speak to the press.
I suppose the clause is designed with whistleblowers and disgruntled staff in mind rather than what I'm talking about, which is talking about the positive side of the job.
Still, if this really is the case, there is clearly some work to be done on communicating the message that there isn't a blanket ban.
Emma's point seems fair and from her position understandable. However social workers who see colleagues lambasted in the much of the press and on occassions receiving death threats after their entire lives are turned upside down are hardly likely to take a risk and enter the lion's den now are they? And then there's the little matter of asking one's employer if one might speak to a journalist. Get real! If sections of the responsible press really want to access Social workers stories, first research what impedes social workers talking in the first place. Then when some journalists understand a bit more and can gain a foothold of Trust, ask social workers through organisations such as BASW, Unison or certain enlightened employers so that individual Social Workers will be a little better prepared, supported and debriefed. I was a local authority child care social worker for 20 years but due to the poor pay and conditions, lack of support and decreasing professional autonomy/increased bureaucracy retrained in Psychotherapy. The clients were the least of my problems and in some ways the direct work then made up for the deteriorating employment experiences and prospects. The relationship forming and maintaining was at the heart of the work. Now that social work seems to "commissions" others to undertake such work (is it less important or just another budget matter?), all that appears left are the important but shorter term assessments, writing of reports, keeping stats, following procedures, being chained to computer screens and being a cog in an ever demanding/rigid employment system. Now who would want to talk about that and what journalists would be interested? BORING!
The reason social workers and family courts get a worse press in the UK than in most other European countries is simple.
Forced adoption (adoption against the opposition of parents expressed in court )does NOT exist in other countries that are members of the EU !BARONESS HALE criticised the UK for this in the "Lisburn trust" case saying the only other possible exception was Portugal.
Add to this the reason most used to justify forced adoptions is the very subjective "emotional abuse" or even worse the taking of newborn babies at birth "for risk of emotional abuse !!"
If forced adoption was abolished and most resources were concentrated on identifying and preventing physical abuse (like that suffered by baby P, Victoria Climbé,and others)Criticism could turn to praise !
If hard working social workers who are aware of bad practice (misinformation, acting against the GSCC Code of Practice etc) by others within their own ambit were to act to root out the rubbish amongst them, they would have earned respect.
Until then....