As part of our Stand Up Now for Social Work campaign we have surveyed local authorities to ask communications officers about how they go about promoting the important work that you do as social workers.
A key finding is that half of local government communications teams found social workers reluctant to engage with the media. It reminded me of a comment that someone left on a blog saying they were 'scared of journalists'.
Is this how most of you feel?
(Watch out for a full analysis of the results in our 13 September edition, which will also be published online.)
I think myself and other SW I have met would recognise that they are not qualified to talk to the media as a representative of their team or local authority. I don’t think it’s about willingness to discuss issues or promote the profession, but more because of the negative attitude much of the media appears to have of the SW role and how that may be misapplied to any engagement with the press. For example wanting to talk about successes and only having failures highlighted. So yes, fear is a pretty accurate.
"We speak, and the word goes out beyond us, to consequences and ends which we had not conceived of." - Gadamer
Daniel Lombard: A key finding is that half of local government communications teams found social workers reluctant to engage with the media. It reminded me of a comment that someone left on a blog saying they were 'scared of journalists'. Is this how most of you feel?
If you are a Social Worker you sign a contract that forbids you to speak to any media, even if you talk to the media about something completely unrelated to SW you need to clear it with your LA and it goes above line managment it does to director of services.
I'm not scared of journalists. I'm wary of some journalists but generally I've had positive experiences in my conversations - but then, the only journalists I've spoken to have either been from or via Community Care, The Guardian and the BBC. I don't think there's anything to be gained by being gagged by the local authority and there are certainly aspects of social work which I can talk about - namely, me being a social worker - as opposed to talking about particular policies or casework - which I wouldn't discuss - that makes me feel more comfortable.
Hi, as local authority employees we are not allowed to speak directly to the press. Any requests by journalists have to go via the communications officers.
Many of us would love to speak to journalists to provide some balance to reporting, although I notice that recently the BBC and some newspapers have become much more balanced in their reporting. Sad news for those who thrive on spreading myths about child protection social work, either because they do not understand it, or because they have been on the receiving end of it themselves and did not like the outcome.
I agree, many of us would like to put the picture right, but we are not allowed to.
Hi Daniel,
For clarity let me address your question as follows:
1. Are communication officers in local authorities scared to engage with media?
They are mostly entangled in the political web of local authorities and the whims of the director/deputy directors in charge. Therefore, their media involvement is not an active/proactive engagement at all. They are there to convey specific messages as defined by LA or to answer specific questions addressed to the LA. Furthermore, most of them, do not have that much expertise in the media nor are they such great communicators to be able to manage or engage the media in an incisive manner.
So are they scared of the media? Perhaps you can call it that, but it is more of a combination of factors than just fear of media.
2. Are social workers scared to engage with the media?
I believe many social workers would love to engage with the media however, are unable to do so due to the restrictions of their contracts with local authorities. The so called 'gagging orders', are an indispensible tool for GSCC and the government to keep their hegemonic and bureaucratic house of cards, that is social work, together.
It is singularly paradoxical to note that the profession that is supposed to give expression to the poor and the marginalised, and to speak for those who can not speak for themselves, is denied every possibility to speak for itself.
All the best,
Roberts
HotBox2009:If you are a Social Worker you sign a contract that forbids you to speak to any media, even if you talk to the media about something completely unrelated to SW you need to clear it with your LA and it goes above line managment it does to director of services.
Hotbox is this just for local authority social workers as part of a contract with your employer or all social workers, i.e. those working in the private and voluntary sectors? I think the local government systems are definitely a key issue here. Scot1 if you would love to speak to journalists, have you approached your colleagues in communications to ask if this would be feasible? You're always welcome to speak to us at Community Care to share information, ideas, opinions - providing of course that you are allowed to do so - as there are lots of appropriate platforms for you online and in print.
One suggestion for people who would love to speak to the press about the work that they do is to start contacting your communications team with story ideas for the council newsletter or for press releases, e.g. about the latest groundbreaking project, or with human interest stories about social workers or service users. If you bombard them with stuff they are bound to say yes to something eventually, and chances are you'll be asked to give a few quotes.
One thing that strikes me is that politicians do not want to engage in a debate about SW/social care with their electorate. They tend to be reactive, when people complain and if things go badly wrong, as must happen sometimes,there is a tendency to look for blame. There isn't an ongoing dialogue with the public about what social work does. I assume because there are few votes in it and a lot of the discussion might be about what the public don't want to hear - a dangerous concept for a politician.
The problem is we can only ultimately get legitimacy if we have the public not actively against us and can much better innovate and forge ahead if the public are enthusiastically for us.
A proper debate about care of children to care of the disabled to care of the elderly is required with politicians prepared to be honest about what is achievable and decisions about priorities "owned" by the community at large in a much more open way.
It's not SW's in general who are afraid of engaging with the press but the council press offices. On a number of occasions I have been involved with cases that have got into the papers. I have considered that in all of them there were gross innacuracies and lies. The communications officer was insistent that it was better to offer bland responses rather than give them anything more to write about, it would be a flash in the pan.
One thing I suggested was that we indicate that we are unable to discuss individual cases but that if the individual gave us permission we could. if the person did not give permission then the press should be asking how much credence could be given to the story.
I was told that would raise a load of problems eg if parent agreed we could talk about it we would still have to get permisssion from all the other people that might be identified by what we said and it may impact badly for the children. I did find this a convincing argument but it is still very frustrating that we are so cautious about responding to one sided stories in the press.
Daniel Lombard: As part of our Stand Up Now for Social Work campaign we have surveyed local authorities to ask communications officers about how they go about promoting the important work that you do as social workers. A key finding is that half of local government communications teams found social workers reluctant to engage with the media. It reminded me of a comment that someone left on a blog saying they were 'scared of journalists'. Is this how most of you feel? (Watch out for a full analysis of the results in our 13 September edition, which will also be published online.)
Why is Community Care promoting the "good news" stories of Social Work when the poor pay, unrecognised long hours, slashed resources and unsupported teams and managers are the norm. Social services adults teams, CMHT's etc are like a big filing cabinet, you have the labelled drawers, which look great from the outside but when you open the drawer it is half empty. do you really want social workers talking publicity about older people, m/health patients and children restrained and drugged for years. safeguarding legislation which is impotent, service criteria so restrictive and narrow which allows abuse, poverty and squalor to flourish, care packages that are unreliable and postcode dependant etc. Could the promotion and need for a rash of good news stories have anything to do with the forthcoming election and news management for this bloody awful Govt ...???
My experience from the PR side is that many local authority staff, including social workers, are reluctant to speak to the press. Many have limited understanding of the way the media works, understandably, and there is a real (and justifiable) fear of being misquoted or otherwise misrepresented. It's also true that there is a fear of putting one's head above the parapet, putting one's foot in it, making trouble for oneself at work etc.
Some of the reasons why most local authorities have codes of conduct prohibiting staff contact with the press, except by arrangement with the press office, are:
LA communications teams are there to protect the reputation of the authority. This doesn't or shouldn't mean spin or fabrication, or glossing over problems. Dishonest press officers are easily found out. But any organisation in the public arena does need to consider its reputation - a council with a bad reputation will not be able to work well with partners, will not attract additional funding, will not attract high quality recruits, will have to overcome preconceptions on the part of government, inspectors, ministers etc, and will find it harder to build support in its community to get things done.
Of course, reputation is about much more than what's in the press. A good reputation has to be earned, through the collective and individual behaviour of the authority and its members and staff. Part of that is about being honest, not covering problems up etc, with staff as well as with other audiences.
Most of the above applies to news stories (where there are often issues of confidentiality, protecting the interests of clients etc) rather than features. News stories by their nature will generally be about problems rather than success stories. Codes of conduct on contact with the media are there as much to protect individuals as to protect the authority. Do SWs really want reporters to have their direct lines and quiz them on cases? Dealing with the press can literally be a full time job, particularly where there are several local papers, local and regional radio and TV, trade press, national press interest and so on, all asking questions, seeking interviews etc.
However it should be perfectly possible and press offices should be working with social work teams to present positive stories about the work; there is no reason why this shouldn't include practitioners speaking direct to journalists, 'day in the life' style features and so on. Press offices should also be facilitating 'good practice' pieces in Community Care etc, and communications teams should be working with social work teams to produce effective, interesting leaflets, posters and so on, articles in council magazines, website material etc. All this could and should involve social workers talking directly about what they do.
Does this amount to a 'gag'? Social workers (those working for local authorities) are no different from any other public servants or indeed most employees in that they are not expected to denigrate their employer in public. There are or should be other channels for concerns to be raised, through the unions, whistle-blowing procedures etc, which enable points to be made while protecting individuals.
More generally, there is clearly a need for social workers to have an authoritative voice for the profession which can put strong specific and general arguments, comment authoritatively and make an impact on the debate nationally. That has been a clear gap over the recent period. Anonymous whinging about paperwork, caseloads etc makes the profession sound weak and unprofessional, making excuses rather than getting to grips with the issues. Similarly I don't think there has been strong enough presentation of the facts about the skills and training of SWs, their strong record in protecting children, their positive contribution alongside other professionals.There should be well-informed spokespeople getting these lines out. John Coughlan's recent comments about inspections are a notable exception - an experienced professional making informed points about a process which may now be hindering rather than encouraging improvement. Inspection regimes as part of the problem rather than part of the solution is one of the untold stories in the recent media blitz on SWs - but it needs a strong voice to tell it if it is not to look like special pleading.
On a personal note I think there's actually a limited appetite in the media to know very much about what social workers do; the sense is that we the public really don't want to know about that, unless something goes wrong. As a local government press officer I've spent hours explaining to ignorant journalists that care decisions are taken by the court not by individal social workers, that there is a rigorous process, that often many other professionals are involved, that the police for example have a major role and significant powers in respect of child protection, but the myth persists that children are snatched away by over-zealous SWs, or on the other hand not taken away when they should be, that it's all about SWs rather than about a system. This of course is not that different from the way that local government is treated generally by the press. The media is not that interested in transport planners either.
That said, I would like to see more effort, from communications teams and from SWs, to think about communications and PR, get to understand codes of conduct on media contact, plan properly and agree arrangements for better coverage, including SWs talking directly to journalists where appropriate. It's not rocket science and it can be done.