Sunday 9 December 2012

Wigan redux, or how CILIP got my goat this week

I finally got round to opening and reading an issue of CILIP Update this week, and almost immediately had to put to down again because it made me cross.

At the foot of page 12 appears a small two-column news piece on the sale of rare books from Wigan public libraries (as mentioned previously on this blog). Unfortunately, the whole tenor of this short news piece is that selling off rare books is a perfectly sound way to raise money for public libraries.  The headline is 'Rare books raise cash for service', which makes it sound like this is all a jolly good idea, and possibly something other libraries should be thinking of, too.  Well done, those rare books...

The text just repeats the council's line that the books had "no intrinsic connection to Wigan".  Which is likely true, but doesn't represent the whole picture: "intrinsic connection" is not the only way books can be relevant to a place or institution. 

It notes that "at least some of the proceeds [are] set to be ploughed back into the library services": maybe that headline should read "Rare books possibly raise cash for service" then, eh?  And "ploughed back" sounds awfully like it's been copied straight from a council news release.

That's really my whole gripe with this short piece.  I appreciate that it's a news item, not an opinion column, but it very much feels like lazy journalism - repeating a release from a particular source without giving sufficient thought (or research) to what other opinions there might be.  There's no mention of opposition to the sale from the Historic Libraries Forum (who do get a mention in this local paper piece from October), nor any nuance to the writing to suggest that the relevance or value to Wigan of the books as stated is the opinion of the council and not necessarily a fact.

I know that CILIP can't campaign on everything, and I'm not asking them to.  But I don't think it's asking to much to expect a professional body to recognise a professionally controversial event and to report on it carefully, accurately and with a bit of subtlety.  I wonder now how much I can trust the Update news on sectors and issues with which I'm not so familiar.  And I do hope that no heads of service or councillors read this nugget and took away from it the idea that they can sell their old books to make a fast buck, too...

Of course, public libraries are not necessarily the best place for rare books to be, given that there's often little or no resources for cataloguing, preservation and conservation, or access and outreach (Brooke Palmieri comments very interestingly on this point on my first post about Wigan - I recommend a read).  But I really think we as professionals, and our professional body, should be trying to make these resources exist, rather than just to report blandly on collection dispersal.

11 comments:

  1. I've been unable to trust anything in the News section of Update since it reproduced my local county council's press release verbatim, with no alternative comment. In that case, ten local libraries were closed or re-opened by village volunteers; CILIP took completely uncritically the council line that this would improve services elsewhere in the county, without contacting anyone from the communities concerned, all of whom had reps in communication with the library service.

    It is somewhat depressing that my professional association is so incurious about the press releases it receives; I don't feel that my employer's money is being well spent when this sort of very lazy journalism is allowed to persist...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Coming from an info profs perspective, I agree that the piece shouldn't have appeared in Update in this form. But I think there is a misconception here about journalism in general.

    I studied both PR and journalism as part of my first degree, and have also worked in a newsroom. PR people write press releases to promote their client and/or product. They write them in a way that journalists can just copy and paste or rearrange a few words to make a news story. And this is what journalists do. I think people are under the impression that journalism is all investigative, in the style of Bernstein and Woodward; actually most stories come from the news agenda and press releases. This is particularly true of the trade press, I think. I would guess that all the news in Update comes from press releases. If you look at the previous page (pg 11) it has a similar story headlined 'Mobile service reductions' that doesn't contain an alternative viewpoint.

    To be fair to the writers at Update, this is standard practice. In addition, if you look at the masthead it shows only one reporter (plus two editors). I would guess he does most of the writing in the publication (that isn't done by contributors). At a rough guess, that's 17 pages in this issue. He has to produce enough content for those pages once every month (in addition to other duties, I assume). I'm guessing he doesn't have the time to take a critical view on every single story that makes it in.

    Again, as an info prof I don't like how these stories have been presented by the publication of my professional body. BUT as a former journalism student, I can absolutely understand how they came to be there.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Michelle for a very interesting counter-perspective. You're right - I'm certainly being idealistic.

      Delete
  3. Am also interested to know what Update's take is on this. Have you contacted them for comment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am in contact with them, and I've let them know about this post and invited them to comment.

      Delete
  4. Prior to this blog being published I contacted Katie and offered to discuss her concerns about the article. The contact was limited by the fact it was through 140 characters of Twitter, but I said I could explain in more detail via email. Katie agreed to this, saying that she too would ‘need more room than Twitter to explain’ her concerns. However following the blog’s publication I was sent a message saying: ‘Haven't managed to write an email yet, but have blogged my thoughts briefly here…’
    I was inclined to leave it at that, but it has since been pointed out to me that Katie has mentioned CILIP directly in her response to a comment. Rather than give the impression that CILIP is not listening, I will briefly outline my case.
    The initial accusation was that the news article was not a ‘fair representation’ of the facts. Katie ‘attribute[s] stupid Update article thing to sloppy journalism not an actual CILIP belief that pub libs don't need special collections btw.’
    As I pointed out to Kate before she blogged this piece, the news article was factually correct – the books have been sold. In my opinion the tone of the article is neither pro nor anti the sale of the books, it is neutral and factually accurate. It is fair to include the council spokesman’s statement as this is the given reason for the sale. I would argue that while this neutral stance does not affirm Kate’s personal view on the matter, it is not ‘sloppy’ journalism. Had it been factually incorrect, then perhaps that assertion would have had more substance.
    Equally, I would argue that the report is an entirely ‘fair representation’ of the fact that Wigan library services has sold the books, which it claims it could not care for. (Interestingly Kate does point to a detailed comment from Brooke Palmieri, which appears to back-up Wigan’s statement).
    The article is a news story and was written to inform readers of the fact of the sale. This particular article does not contain any of my ‘opinion’, and the reporting of a news story should not be confused with support (or otherwise) of an event. No news article will ever give a complete picture of a story – whether it appears in Update or on the BBC. Those who read the article are entirely free to make up their own minds about the rights and wrongs of the sale.
    It is important to note that articles in Update do not necessarily represent the views of CILIP (there is always a disclaimer in the contents section saying as much). If and when it does represent CILIP’s views on issues it will be made clear either by quoting a named CILIP representative or through a CILIP spokesperson. CILIP does not comment on every news story published in Update.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rob,

      Thanks for taking the time to comment. I am sorry I didn't email you, but I would have had nothing different to say than is expressed here.

      I don't think we're going to reach an agreement on this particular article. Thanks for pulling me up about my lazy conflation of Update and CILIP the organisation.

      Katie

      Delete
  5. Having read Rob's reply I can't let it go uncommented. The problem is the article is factually incorrect and that is where I must agree with Katie that this is sloppy journalism. Many more than 128 books have been sold, but as they were never identifed as coming from Wigan it is impossibe to know exactly how many. They were included in two Bonham's sales in London 2nd October and 6th November and two in Oxford on 25th September and 23rd November. On anecdotal evidence it appears that many more 18th and 19th century books are now floating around the book trade.

    And the assertion that none of the books were Wigan-specific is also incorrect. Just arrived on my desk is an 18th century book printed in Warrington with the binder's ticket of a Wigan binder. This was in the last Oxford sale. There will be numerous similar examples, if only we had more information available.

    There were also many books with strong connections to the region - including local provenances, regional printing (important collections of books printed in Manchester and Warrington in particular) and this should have at least led someone from Wigan to consult with other colleagues in the region well in advance of the sale. That is all too late now, and the books are now dispersed across the world, many going into private collections. The council's own statement in its report tabled in August 2011 says 'We have a professional duty of care to ensure that these books are preserved for future generations and made available for research and study. This would be achieved by selling the items to buyers who can ensure this happens.' This is in fact the complete opposite to what has happened.

    Julianne Simpson
    John Rylands Library

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julianne,

      Thanks for this really informative comment. I've not seen any of the books that were sold, so it's really useful to hear from those who have.

      Katie

      Delete
  6. I bought a copy of Monasticon Anglicanum (Bohn's edition) ex Wigan Library 2-3 years ago. If you want to know what's been sold, why not put in an FOI request?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dozens of books on ebay auctions finishing tonight ex Wigan, mainly in need of a lot of TLC.
    http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/gagebooks/m.html?item=370707078449&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2562
    http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/worthydownbooks/m.html?hash=item416c2d632b&item=280987788075&pt=Antiquarian_Books_UK&rt=nc&_trksid=p4340.l2562

    ReplyDelete