Out of interest, does anyone else think that the GSCC simply cutting and pasting stories about social worker's conduct

 http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/09/15/109391/sunderland-conduct-case-social-worker-suspended.html

constitutes original and innovative journalism? Or even journalism - as opposed to cutting and pasting - at all?

 There was very little critical coverage of this type of story even in the recent 'conduct' issue. Yet each of these cases could potentially be an intersting, controversial story. Whether you think the GSSC is 'de-registration happy' or, conversely, that weak / unprofessional worker continue to slip through the net, there's plenty of food for thought at this changing time for the profession. Especially, as hearings are open to the public, one might even think that the "online community for social care" could send a reporter down?

 Pathetic.

 Nor would the TES or BMJ tolerate such lacklustre nonsense in the pages / webpages of their somewhat more esteemed journals of professional record.

Nick Davies calls it "churnalism". But it's here to stay - there are more people who work in PR than in journalism - so cutting and pasting is commonplace - even in the 'quality' daily newspapers.

But on the issue of content, do we really want to depress ourselves by reading about social workers' defiencies?

Obviously there is a balance to be struck - but personally I'd much rather Community Care journalists expend their energy on social care stories about 'best practice' or 'what works', and leave the social-work-knocking to the Daily Mail.

Thanks for the comments guys, which we of course take on board.

eastend 11, you're absolutely right that the Sunderland conduct story was taken from a GSCC press release and, equally, that there is almost certainly a richer story behind this case.

It is to tell these richer stories that one of our journalists regularly covers conduct hearings, such as the following:-

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/08/22/109190/gscc-conduct-case-mabel-rose-cleared-of-misconduct.html (in August)

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/07/11/108830/gscc-social-worker-struck-off-for-sexual-relationships-with.html (in July)

Since the GSCC launched its conduct system we've covered as many cases as our limited resources will allow.

In terms of the Sunderland story and others like it, the point of the article is to report the outcome of a case, relaying simple information being one facet of our jobs, along with the more probing journalism you talk about.

And - you may well not agree - I would cast our conduct special as an example of the latter, containing as it did original research into social workers' attitudes to inappropriate behaviour towards clients, another exclusive story on the GSCC's thinking about increasing the number of sanctions available to it in the conduct system and expert comment.

Here it is if you missed it http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/09/03/109288/gscc-moves-to-increase-sanctions.html 

On MD's point - whether we should be reporting on the conduct system and individual cases as frequently as we do (including reporting on outcomes as in the Sunderland case) - I agree this is a matter of balance, which is why we devote several pages in our magazine to best practice and what works every week and why we have a comprehensive section devoted to good practice on the website http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/09/10/102930/practice-section.html 

I think we could scarcely be accused of social work knocking (though if others think otherwise do let us know), including in our coverage of the conduct system.

As the conduct special showed we seek to cover the conduct system as a "system" - one that forms a core part of the regulation of social workers in England - as well as reporting on individual cases. That is in part the purpose of the cases we cover, to illustrate how the system works, to show what happens to social workers involved and to demonstrate how the professional regulator operates.

Given how long people in the profession have been calling for the professional regulation of social work, I think there's a strong public interest in us showing what this means in practice. 

In terms of individual cases (whether covered directly or from GSCC press releases), there is another point to make - one that you may not find particularly appealing but one that we're necessarily influenced by: they are consistently the most well-read stories among visitors to our website, a very high proportion of whom (I expect a majority) are practising social workers.

Having said all that, we rely on feedback such as yours and others' to develop some kind of idea over whether we're striking the right balance in our coverage or not, so do all feel free to comment further.

Now, this is like the Wizard of Oz revealing (her)self...! 

eastend11, like any journalist now, I am all too familiar with the concept of "churnalism" and as the reporter who wrote the Sunderland conduct story online yesterday, I am in the strange position of agreeing that a small element of my job could be interpreted this way. That is, I am sometimes required to write stories at great speed to ensure we have a required number of stories on the web every day. [it's called "breaking news" and is not meant to be more than a sketch, and when fuller details emerge over time it will make a more substantial story] 

But I did not just cut and paste as you suggest - I spoke to the GSCC to check the facts and also found some additional information that is not in the press release. For this reason, I don't think that my story can be judged as poor, because I know that it is accurate. Also, 'poor' journalists can't answer their critics or take constructive criticism...so I don't think I fit in that camp either. I am always up for dialogue with readers, unlike many journalists (who can be holier-than-thou).

And as my colleague Mithran points out, we are still in the business of giving information as well as "journalism", so where you don't get a fully investigated story (which take weeks, months or even years if they are done properly, I suggest you try it one day) you at least get some straightforward facts that could be useful to your practice or at least spark your professional engagement with certain issues. This is our way of using the requirement to produce a certain amount of news online a day to the best advantage - where we can't provide a substantial story we will view it as useful (we hope) information. As Mithran also points out, the conduct stories are always read by the most readers online and we have the statistics to prove it...MD, take note.

eastend11, if you look at any of the debates in the wider media sector you will find the debate about "churnalism" is raging - on whether journalism has just become about quantity over quality. I have read Nick Davies' book - it told me what I already knew. I read most of the national papers every day and I can spot a mile off where a press release or agency copy has been rehashed...even the venerable institutions like the BBC are notorious for doing this now...I spotted a story in an extremely highly regarded national paper just other day that included a substantial cut and paste from one of my own stories online! I had actually attended the event on which the story had based, and I know the reporter who cut and pasted from my story had not been present. I, of course, was not credited, although that was several hours of my work in that little paragraph.

No publication has been immune to this change that has come in part with the increasing dominance of the web as the main source of news - (in theory for the next generation at least) except those with big resources. But in my experience - having worked for a range of publications before coming here - Community Care, which I am proud to work for, still manages to maintain a high level of journalistic quality overall - compared to many other media outlets -  despite increasing pressures to produce a certain number of stories "to order" for the web every day. Also, meeting our required targets (not only social workers have targets you know!) on how many web stories we get up per day means we have to weigh up what we can and can't do within the given time. Going out of the office to cover that particular conduct case was not possible given the very tight deadlines we work under.

However, I would like to think we do the very best job we can given the competing pressures to write for the web and the magazine, although we always welcome feedback. Interestingly enough, it would be great to start a debate on this forum as to what kind of stories you think we should be doing...we have tried this in the past but strangely got little response. Now, give us some ideas...this is your magazine after all! How would you like us to use the web to produce news/information for you, and how should it differ from the content in the magazine?