nand any nouon or a anveriess bandwagon.
Missing from the pamphlet is any examination of the nature of racism or the role that it serves. Neither is there anv mention of the ideology that underpins it -ideology which links directly with the chauvinism and nationalism that is the daily diet of Fleet Street, Enoch and which journalists must there- fore confront if they are seriously to oppose racism.
It is the introduction to this pamphlet which informs us about the real reason for its publication by the Runnymede Trust. There we find an attack which is largely directed at anti-racists in tne wal ional Union of e sewnere in the abour movement who have the audacity to challenge ine control exerco over unc press by its proprietors and editors.
This is plainly spelt out in the foreword by Jim Rose, director of orial director of ress.
Rose, who has a liberal position carried -OLL race issues, national press 'quite unwittingly' contributed to the racism; and while he notes "tragic consequences, he reserves his main venom for NUJ members who are seeking to implement the unions code or conduct on race coverage. Clause 10 of this states: *A journalist shall not originate material which encourages disrace, COlOUR. sexual onculauon.
'However idealistic the motives behind the campaign, Rose informs us, it is totally misguided, for this kind of censorship by journalists is quite inconsistent with freedom of the press; it is the Mena or a very wedge which could be between an editor and his report Journalists and ing staff."
we. we. How verv Untorn ate for director Rose and the rest or ine gauleiers or une media.
Peter Evans does at least imply that journalists should have some element of independence from the Westminster dictates of editors, and states that editorial staff cannot escape the responsibility for what they do and states that the what results from it.
But he too rejects the idea that there should be any policy dealing with racism in the media low "falsehoods to fester" creed, gender, or dangerous driven Sün