Memorandum by Nick Carter, Editor of the
Leicester Mercury (SOC 74)
1. ROLE OF
THE MEDIA
1.1 One of the greatest challenges facing
editors today—whether of newspapers or broadcast media—is
to keep in touch with the accelerating pace of change in our communities.
The assumptions editors might have been reasonably comfortable
to make a few years ago are almost certainly far too flimsy to
work on now.
1.2 One of the most important of all the
changes is the size and significance of the different cultural
and faith groups—whether they are 3rd or 4th generation
or relatively new arrivals. And hand in hand with the changes
they are going through, are the changes and emotions they
can bring about in our longer-established communities.
1.3 Our awareness of the issues that can
develop around these changes is helping to drive the debate about
community cohesion, how it can best be achieved and what is the
role for the media in this process.
1.4 Of course, community cohesion is not
exclusively about race issues, even though that is where most
of the discussion centres. It is also about the relative economic,
educational and employment status of the communities involved.
1.5 It is also about perceptions and understanding—and
that means the media, as a key informer of public opinion, must
have a major role to play.
1.6 The importance of that role has been
acknowledged by various Government and local government reports
and assessments. Both the Denham and Cantle reports emphasise
it. The Cantle report recommended that discussions should be held
with a "range of regional newspaper editors (and media representatives)
to establish a voluntary code of guidance, facilitated by the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport and their representative
bodies, on all aspects of community cohesion. A media group has
been included in the various practitioner groups created in the
wake of that report.
1.7 So how should the regional media discharge
this role? I believe the following points encapsulate what editors
should be doing:
1.7.1 They should be getting involved with
the different communities in their area to make sure they understand
fully all the issues and concerns that affect them.
1.7.2 They should establish proper working
relationships and regular contact with key organisations working
to try to make life better for their communities.
1.7.3 They should play a more proactive
role in helping communities move towards a better future.
1.7.4 They should seek to understand to
the fullest extent in what ways the content and reporting style
of their newspaper, television or radio station impacts on individuals,
communities and the overall climate of feeling in their community.
1.7.5 They should understand it will be
tougher for their or any business, to make progress in communities
where the component groups are fragmented, frightened and apprehensive
than it would be when people share a common desire for a better
future and are therefore actively interested in what is happening
around them.
1.7.6 And, with that understanding, it is
about us getting better at being more proactive in finding opportunities
to make a positive difference.
1.7.7 At its centre, it is about moving
from a position where we are more often than not fairly passive
in how we discharge our responsibilities into a situation where
we are much more active. It is about editors becoming proper players
in the future of our communities.
1.8 For the Leicester Mercury, it has meant
setting up what is now the city's multi-cultural advisory group.
(See 2 below)
1.9 The responsibilities the Leicester Mercury
now accepts as a consequence of sitting round that table mean
we work harder to look for the positives in our communities—particularly
where they demonstrate that people from different cultures are
living and working together.
1.10 We are more aware of those small groups
of extremists who want to divide our communities and spread fear
and suspicion. And we are better able to provide a platform for
all the communities in which we seek to sell.
1.11 Inevitably, this puts more pressure
on us to make those right decisions and it does mean we have to
spend more time thinking about the consequences of everything
we do.
1.12 But we made this move because of our
own awareness of how our communities were changing and the spotlight
that was starting to turn on us, as the key means of communication
and information.
1.13 I believe that, because of the population
mix in Leicester, the Leicester Mercury probably came into the
spotlight earlier than most. But as awareness of the importance
of having cohesive communities grows, so more and more people
are starting to look to the media for some answers—and also,
inevitably, in some circumstances as somewhere to pin the blame.
1.14 It is important to recognise that the
various initiatives taken by the Leicester Mercury—in particular
the creation of the multi-cultural advisory group—would
have been very much more difficult if the newspaper had not enjoyed
good working relationships with the other organisations involved.
I believe this must be a key learning point for any moves to create
similar groups elsewhere.
2. CREATION AND
WORK OF
THE LEICESTER
MULTICULTURAL ADVISORY
GROUP
2.1 Leicester has a history of interracial
harmony that has been maintained in part by positive initiatives
and constant vigilance by the city council, Leicester Council
of Faiths and members of the many diverse communities in the city
and county. The Leicester Mercury has always sought to play its
part and has always been keen to recognise the positive contributions
made to the cultural life of the city and county by the growing
communities with roots in south Asia.
2.2 During 2000 Leicester came under the
spotlight nationally and internationally after it was revealed
that some statistical analyses predicted that the city would have
a minority white population by 2011. This was presented quite
negatively in some national media and there was a danger of raised
tension in the city. Because of this, and its own developing awareness
of the need for a more active stance to assist community relations
as the city moved into a new era, the Leicester Mercury adopted
a more proactive policy.
2.3 In the months before the 2001 General
Election, it was clear that the race card could well be played
nationally—with adverse impact in Leicester. The reporting
of such matters, as well as how the city should be seen to respond
would clearly need careful handling. Mercury editor Nick Carter
called together a group representing various bodies and communities
in Leicester with a view to creating an informal discussion group
that could provide advice to all local media as well as presenting
a united front were the city required to react to outside events.
2.4 Twenty people attended a meeting on
14 March 2001. They included the leader and chief executive of
Leicester City Council, the chief executive of Leicester Racial
Equality Council, representatives of the police, Leicester Council
of Faiths, academics, school principals and governors as well
as local BBC and commercial radio and Asian TV in the city. They
were there as individuals rather than delegates representing,
and accountable to, organisations. (Appendix 3: List of members)
2.5 Their purpose—to "discuss
threats to the continuing development of a truly multicultural
society in Leicester presented by the possible misuse or misrepresentation
of race and related issues in any forthcoming General Election
campaign," and "to identify what measures, if any, could
be taken to counter or lessen the impact of such threats, both
in the short and long term."
2.6 It was agreed the meeting was worthwhile
because a General Election could produce comments locally or attract
unhelpful external media coverage. Such incidents could be countered
directly by `a rebuttal squad' ready at short notice to speak
on multicultural issues and by continuing to highlight the positive
benefits of multicultural Leicester. It was also agreed that there
should be no attempt to dismiss or cover up genuine areas of concern.
2.7 The first meeting was immediately faced
with how to advise the city council on the handling of a request
from the National Front for a St George's Day march through Leicester.
The city council leader had decided to use the meeting as a sounding
board. Discussing whether the city council should seek to ban
the NF march, (which it eventually successfully did) advisory
group members were divided on whether the risk of allowing the
National Front to make deliberately damaging statements outweighed
the rights of all citizens to participate fully in the democratic
process.
2.8 The General Election passed without
incident. But, with several meetings under its belt, the group
realised it was a unique body and could provide a valuable service
to community relations in Leicester—and indeed outside the
city. Both the police and city council were keen for it to continue—particularly
as a sounding board.
2.9 A name and terms of reference were agreed
in September 2001. (Appendix 4)
2.10 Since then the group has met regularly
and has begun to carve out a role as unofficial monitoring body
for community cohesion in Leicester together and the various projects
and activities being undertaken to tackle obstacles to cohesion.
It has expanded membership to include representatives of youth
groups and the city's growing Somali community.
2.11 Chatham House rules generally apply
to discussions. The group's greatest strength has been that the
membership has felt free to speak plainly in an atmosphere of
trust with little evidence of them feeling that they may have
to justify themselves to other members of the group or to outside
bodies from which they come.
2.12 This is not to say that the members
do not bring their own priorities to the group. Some see sport
as the principal way to increase community cohesion and they seek
to end racism among sports supporters and to encourage the city's
professional sports clubs to appoint players (who will act as
role models) from across a wider breadth of the population.
2.13 Others prioritise education. The group
has been self-confident enough for frank discussions (informed
by external expertise) on the controversy surrounding plans by
Leicester City Council with the Bishop of Leicester for a faith-based
college and for an Islamic academy.
2.14 The group has been fortunate to attract
officers from the organisation Youth Voice as regular attendees
and, in the past six months, as permanent members. Our meetings
have been visited by members of the World Parliament of Faiths
and by representatives of the Improvement and Development Agency.
All seem to have been impressed by the group's direction and commitment.
2.15 One suggested initiative mentioned
at the first meeting—of a Leicester Declaration—was
resurrected for the May 2003 local government elections when the
leaders of the three main political parties signed an agreement
based on the Commission for Racial Equality guidelines but amended
by the group, pledging themselves and their parties to promoting
good race relations. The message was clear: extremist parties
would not be welcome in Leicester.
2.16 Members of the group have on occasion
met community representatives to discuss areas of possible tension
and have also facilitated discussions with our major sports clubs
on widening their involvement with ethnic minorities.
2.17 None of the group would claim the battle
is won. Indeed, the group's raison d'étre remains
because its members are not complacent. Some members might sometimes
think it is too obsessed with internal matters of membership,
whether to be a monitor or an agent of action, and whether it
should remain closely allied with the city when ethnic minorities
are increasingly moving into neighbouring suburbs out of the unitary
authority area. But it continues to have relevance and still gets
early warnings of potential troubles.
3. NATIONAL CONTEXT
3.1 Since the Cantle report mentioned above,
there has been little activity aimed specifically at encouraging
greater media involvement in the promotion of community cohesion
at local level.
3.2 The Local Government Association produced
"Guidance on Community Cohesion" in 2002. This document,
a cooperation with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the
Home Office, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Inter
Faith Network for the United Kingdom, identified good practice
and provided practical guidance across the whole spectrum of the
issue.
3.3 It carried five paragraphs on Press
and Media—mentioning some media good practice, of which
the Leicester Mercury was the only newspaper—and listed
seven action points for local authorities with regard to media
relations.
3.4 The Home Office has set up a media practitioner
group as one of the sub groups of its community cohesion panel.
It is charged with producing advice to Government on the role
of the media in community cohesion. The writer of this submission
is a member.
3.5 The Society of Editors, which represents
most of the press and major broadcast media in the UK, included
a session at its 2003 annual conference on the role of the media
in community cohesion. The writer of this submission was one of
the speakers.
3.6 As I have stated in Section 1, I believe
there is a need for editors to start to develop greater understanding
of their communities and become even more proactive in what they
do to promote and nurture community cohesion.
3.7 This greater understanding and involvement
can be achieved only through discussion and persuasion, rather
than coercion, since that would undermine the freedom of the media—an
essential ingredient of a free society.
3.8 We should be encouraging editors to
raise their own awareness of the different communities in their
towns or cities and to work more closely with key organisations
to promote social cohesion. This encouragement and guidance should
come through established channels such as the Society of Editors,
which is able to link at national level with other key bodies.
3.9 But if such encouragement is to achieve
results, then local organisations already involved more closely
in community cohesion issues—such as local authorities and
police—need to be receptive to any approaches. That could
mean tackling the suspicions and tensions that often surround
relationships between the media and other organisations. Local
government in particular needs to be ready to share confidences
with editors if they are to help them play more proactive role
in building a better future.
APPENDIX 1
The Leicester Mercury
The Leicester Mercury was first published on
31 January 1874, as a Liberal Party mouth-piece at the time of
the General Election.
Since 1954 it has been part of Northcliffe Newspapers
Group Ltd, the regional newspaper operation of the Daily Mail
and General Trust plc.
The newspaper is the largest title within Northcliffe
and the fifth largest regional evening newspaper in the UK, by
circulation. It sells around 99,000 copies per day and is read
by some 460,000 people during an average week. It circulates in
Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland and was named UK Regional
Newspaper of the Year in 2001.
APPENDIX 2
Ethnicity and faith groups in Leicester
ETHNIC GROUP
| Percentage of resident population in ethnic groups:
| Leicester | England
|
| | |
| White | 63.9 | 90.9
|
| of which White Irish | 1.3
| 1.3 |
| Mixed | 2.3 | 1.3
|
| Asian or Asian British | 29.9
| 4.6 |
| Indian | 25.7 |
2.1 |
| Pakistani | 1.5 |
1.4 |
| Bangladeshi | 0.7
| 0.6 |
| Other Asian | 2.0
| 0.5 |
| Black or Black British | 3.1
| 2.1 |
| Caribbean | 1.6 |
1.1 |
| African | 1.2 |
1.0 |
| Other Black | 0.2
| 0.2 |
| Chinese or Other Ethnic Group | 0.8
| 0.9 |
| |
|
Source: 2001 Census, ONS
RELIGION
| Percentage of resident population in faith groups:
| Leicester | England and Wales
|
| | |
| Christian | 44.7 | 71.8
|
| Buddhist | 0.2 | 0.3
|
| Hindu | 14.7 | 1.1
|
| Jewish | 0.2 | 0.5
|
| Muslim | 11.0 | 3.0
|
| Sikh | 4.2 | 0.6
|
| Other religions | 0.4 | 0.3
|
| No religion | 17.4 | 14.8
|
| Religion not stated | 7.1 |
7.7 |
| |
|
Source: 2001 Census, ONS
APPENDIX 3
Membership of LMAG
Chair:
Ms Iris Lightfoot, Director
Leicester Race Equality Council
Secretary: Paul Winstone
Policy Officer, Leicester City Council
Nick Carter
Editor, Leicester Mercury
Ted Cassidy
Deputy Chair, East Midlands Regional Assembly
Rodney Green
Chief Executive,
Leicester City Council
Superintendent Ian Stripp
Leicestershire Constabulary
Freda Hussain
Principal Moat Community College
Rev David Jennings, Chairman
Diocesan Committee for Race/Community Relations
Jaffer Kapasi OBE DL
Deputy Lord Lieutenant
Don Kotak
Managing Director, Sabras Sound
Liam McCarthy, Managing Editor
BBC Radio Leicester
Vinod Popat
Managing Director, MATV
Rt Rev Tim Stevens
Bishop of Leicester
Roger Blackmore, Leader
Leicester City Council
| Daahir Jawaahir
Somali Community Worker
Steve White
Education Practitioner Group,
Home Office
Sukdev Singh Bansal
President
Leicestershire Asian Business Association
Resham Singh Sandhu
Chairman
Leicester Council of Faiths
Sunil Budhdeo
Governor, Rushey Mead School
Chris Pole
Senior lecturer in sociology
University of Leicester
Haseeb Ahmed
Policy Unit, Leicester City Council
Prajay Pancholi
Youth Voice, Leicester
Jim Matthews
Community News Editor
Leicester Mercury
Adirupa Sengupta
Programme Director
Leicester Common Purpose
Asaf Hussain
Visiting Fellow—University of Leicester & Society for Intercultural Understanding
Angela Lennox
GP, St Matthews, Leicester
|
| |
APPENDIX 4
Terms of Reference of Leicester Multicultural Advisory
Group
VISION STATEMENT
The Institutions and communities represented here, share
a common vision of Leicester, as a prosperous multicultural city,
at ease with itself. In transition to being a major regional centre
for business and culture over the next few decades. We wish to
deepen our diversity by exploring issues raised by the rapid transformation
of the city. We wish to recognise opportunities and threats to
our quality of life and that these can be managed in a strategic
way for the maximum benefits of all our citizens. We recognise
and wish to involve the Faith Communities in all our deliberations
as well as individuals drawn from the private, voluntary and public
sectors.
TERMS OF
REFERENCE
1. Leicester Multicultural Advisory Group, LMAG, will
exist to facilitate dialogue and insight into the big questions
that will determine our future as a multicultural city over the
next decades: The problem and opportunity of managing race relations
in the city by wise and thoughtful long-term action. LMAG grows
out of valuable work initiated by the Leicester Mercury.
2. LMAG will seek to be as inclusive as possible in involving
all the Institutions and communities who have a stake in our future
as a successful multicultural city. The Group will seek to articulate
racial equality concerns, issues, aspirations and threats and
then seek to develop practical consensual policies to address
these projects. The Group will act as a focus for racial equality.
3. There will be a special emphasis on key issues in
education and the emerging views of a new generation who will
shape our future. Efforts will be made to establish a Youth Panel,
to involve young people in our debates in a non-patronising way,
and to listen to their viewpoint. Meetings will be documented
and views disseminated.
4. This will be achieved through open debate, under Chatham
House rules, followed by the development of policies that can
be fed into strategic partnerships that are emerging to take the
city forward.
5. Although the focus of discussion will be Leicester
as an urban entity, meetings will be held to explore the regional
and county issues involved, particularly the city/county relationship.
ADMINISTRATION
Administration support will be undertaken by the city council
including documentation and speaker arrangements etc the Chair
will be held by an individual acclaimed by the Group. Meetings
will be held bi-monthly to ensure quality. Academic support will
be welcomed but the emphasis will be on practical policy making.
| 
