Tuesday, March 8, 2016

The National Screenwriter’s Conference and Freedom of Speech

The National Screenwriter’s Conference and Freedom of Speech

The National Screenwriter’s Conference begins today on Phillip Island. I am a screenwriter, keen to catch up with fellow filmmakers to celebrate our art; our craft. I am also an occasional journalist and a blogger and this, I discovered, is a problem!

“All journalists, commentators, and media seeking access to conference speakers,” the email from the National Screenwriter’s Conference informed me, “have been advised that they will need to put in a formal request to the PR agency managing the conference. Accordingly if you intend to report on the conference and/or quote speakers please make contact with Catherine Lavelle Public Relations.”

It had not occurred to me that I might write about the Conference until I was informed by email that “By confirming your attendance as a screenwriter and not applying for access to the conference as a journalist or media representative you are agreeing not to report on the conference and/or quote speakers…”

“I will be attending the Conference as a screenwriter, “ I replied, “but cannot and will not agree that I will not write about it if I think there is something worth writing about.”

I wrote to Catherine Lavelle’s, the Conference’s PR representative. “The Screenwriter’s Conference has suggested that I should register with you. I am not sure why as I am not going to the conference with the intention of writing anything. However, nor do I wish to be told that I cannot write something if I feel that there is something worth writing about. Any clarification about why it is necessary to register with your public relations agency in order to be free to comment on the conference, if I so choose, would be appreciated.”

Catherine wrote back to me. “You are of course free to comment on the conference, however interviews and quotes for press from speakers need to be cleared with their agents, which is is why the event management team refer all media introductions and enquiries to us to facilitate. To that end we will add your email to our media alert distribution list and ask that if you are wanting to report on the conference including quotes and/or interviews with any of the speakers that a request is sent to us to shepherd through the approvals process prior.”

“I have no desire to conduct an interview with any speakers,” I replied. “However, if any speaker says something in a public forum that I find interesting, instructive, controversial, of course I will quote them - if, that is, I write anything. At present I am not planning to - unless, perhaps, about the absurdity of a public relations company having to "shepherd (me) through the approvals process" in order to quote a speaker.  And if a speaker/agent does not give approval to be quoted on what s/he said in public, what then? I do not believe that I need to request the approval of either the speaker or their agent to quote what is said in a public forum.”

Two days before the Conference was due to begin I wrote:

“I had hoped that at some point today I would receive from the Conference organizers an email along the lines of, “Dear James, there has been a misunderstanding. Of course, as a writer, you are free to comment, to express an opinion, to report on the Conference…”

The response to this was no response. My response to this non response was:

“I think it best, under the circumstances, that you cancel my registration, return my money to me and sell my place at the Conference to a screenwriter who has no objection to agreeing not to comment on his or her experience of it.”

My offer was accepted.  My registration fees have been returned to me and I am not going to the Conference.


I am curious to know if other screenwriters, indeed writers of any kind (journalists,   bloggers, Facebook commentators included) think it odd, to say the least, that the National Screenwriters Conference should place such restrictions on them if they choose to comment in print?

21 comments:

  1. From simply a thinking fb old person...seems symptomatic of a trend in Australia to inhibit open discussion, whether in the press or at the barricades. Guess who gets "shepherded"? Oh that's right...sheep!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Screenwriter’s Conference’s explanation for the need to ‘shepherd’: “As I am sure you can appreciate, part of the beauty of the conference is that the speakers share their knowledge and experiences with delegates openly, without unnecessary formality and on a peer-to-peer basis.  For this reason all journalists, commentators, and media seeking access to conference speakers have been advised that they will need to put in a formal request to the PR agency managing the conference.

      My response: “When I decided to return to Australia to attend the Screenwriter’s Conference it did not occur to me that I might write about it. This was not my reason for wishing to attend.

      Nor did it occur to me that the Conference, having registered me as a screenwriter, would ask me “not to report on the conference and/or quote speakers.”

      All that takes place during the conference, with the obvious exception of private conversations (by definition off-the-record), is in the public domain and anyone is free to comment on it if they so choose.”

      Delete
  2. The Screenwriter's Conference is:

    "Presented by the Australian Writers’ Guild, with our Principal Partner Film Victoria and Industry Partner Foxtel"

    Are they OK with this 'shepherding' business?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess so. Certainly, no-one from the Writer's Guild has got back to me to say, "James, there has been some kind of cock-up here. Of course we want you to come to the Conference and you can write what you like."

    ReplyDelete
  4. You can be sure that the Australian Writers Guild has been instructed by one of its major sponsors to keep a tight rein on all commentary about the conference. Can't have every Tom, Dick and Harriet writer expressing opinions contrary to those mandated by the powers that be, can we!

    ReplyDelete
  5. On my Facebook post a friend, Roland, posted the following comment:

    “Is it McCarthyism again?”

    My response:

    “Nothing quite that sinister, Roland. Whilst I have heard nothing back from the Writer’s Guild it seems, from what I have learnt on the grapevine, that the organizers want to be sure that speakers at the Conference can speak freely, without worrying about whether or not their words will be reported. This is understandable. If Speaker A wants to say, “Working for XXX was a nightmare,” or “I’d suggest, if you wish to go down that path, that you avoid working with YYY.”

    And, of course, screenwriters present also want to be able to speak freely of their experiences at the hands of producers, directors, TV networks and so on without fear of repercussions.

    The answer, I think, is not to have a PR agency riding shotgun, but to make it clear to all attending that certain things might be said that are off the record and that if anyone is writing about it and is unsure about whether certain statements are on or off the record, to check with the person who said it – be that person a speaker or a delegate.

    The reality is that if anyone comes to the Conference with mischief in mind, with no sense of common decency or professional respect for the participants in the Conference, he or she will write what they want regardless of the Writer’s Guild’s guidelines. ‘Shepherding’ journalists, bloggers and other commentators through a PR Agency is, in my view, a very heavy handed way of achieving the desired result – speakers and delegates being able to speak freely.

    If anyone from the Writer’s Guild had called me I could have assured them that I had no intention of breaching what I consider to be the unwritten rules of professional etiquette. I simply did not want to have whatever I wrote vetted by a PR Agency or a speaker’s agent.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In this age of twitter, social media and blogging there is no way of preventing commentary in real time. Imagine someone at the Conference wanting to tweet a comment and, before doing so, making contact with the Guild's PR agency to make sure it is OK! It's not going to happen and to even try to make it happen is just plain stupid. The Guild should rely on the good will of participants to be discrete and, if any participant is not, shame them publicly.

      Delete
    2. If it were my job to open the conference I'd say something along these lines:

      "0K, welcome fellow screenwriters. Some house-keeping. Please turn your mobile phones off during sessions. If you must have them on, please turn them onto ‘silent’. No photos during sessions and no recording. If you feel the need to tweet please don't do so until the session is complete. We want everyone here to feel comfortable speaking freely amongst friends and colleagues - guest speakers and delegates alike - so for the tweeters and bloggers in our midst please respect that some of what will be said during the Conference will be off the record. If you are in any doubt, before you quote a speaker or delegate in a tweet or blog - or an article, for industry journalists - please check with the person who made the comment. It might also be helpful if you do wish to make a comment off the record to preface it with, "This is off the record." We obviously can't police this so must rely on your good manners, your will and professional respect for your colleagues to be discrete and, when in doubt, to ask if they mind being quoted."

      Delete
    3. You cant legislate good manners

      Delete
    4. @ Anonymous 5.01

      No, you can't. And nor should it be necessary. I am a journalist covering NSC and, contrary to what many may believe, we have our code of ethics. I have no intention of quoting anyone without their permission but will not be going through either a PR agency or speaking with agents. We do not need to be treated like children.

      Delete
  6. This is mind boggling stupid. What happened to free speech screenwriters.

    What planet are they on!!!

    I'm sorry that this has been done to you.

    I thought that the dialog you started around the gender issue was valuable and an expression of a view that was thoughtful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, stupid. Even if it were a legitimate goal (which I don't believe it is) attempting to control what can and cannot be reported about the Screenwriter's Conference was (and is) an exercise in futility in the age of twitter, blogs and social media. The Writer's Guild's attempt to police comment about the Conference has been handled in a ham-fisted way and will, if the Guild follows this path in the future, have zero impact on what is reported by those who do not wish to have their comments, their opinions, subjected to the whims of a PR agency.

      Delete
  7. You should have just nodded your head, agreed to their terms, gone to the conference, James, and then written whatever the fuck you wanted to write.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I could not do that. The Writer's Guild is entitled to put in place whatever guidelines it likes when organising a Conference such as this one. It is up to me to either go along with the guidelines or not go. To say I would do one thing (not write about the Conference) and then write about it, without being 'shepherding' would be wrong. Yes, I think the guideline is stupid but it is the Guild's right to implement such a policy.

      Delete
  8. A further question I'd be interested in James. There are several different Writers Conferences held in Australia each year. How many of these, and which ones,include a public relations outfit, and require writers attending to have any written responses or descriptive articles on aspects of their conference, overseen by a pr person. I haven't heard of any, but it's quite possible that this is a common practice now. Could writers who have recent experience in Conference practice add their knowledge to this please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no idea, Linda, if the Writer's Guild's 'shepherding-through-a-PR-agency' approach is common or not. I have never heard of it. The two people I have spoken with who are regular speakers at conferences tell me that they have never requested that their comments for publication be filtered through a PR agency. And that no conference organiser has ever even suggested this as an option to them when they have agreed to speak. If anyone reading this knows the answer to the question, I'd love to know?

      Delete
  9. The response from a friend who goes to lots of conferences as a speaker:

    "I've never come across anything like this. I've been to many conferences and spoken at many more (including writers fests in Sydney, Brisbane and Byron) and never come across anything similar. I think it's very odd and quite sinister - especially coming from writers!"

    ReplyDelete
  10. What I heard at the NSC was that you were not a member of AWG and were only coming to heap shit on it so were not welcome

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are you posting as Anonymous? I hate that.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous 8.13

      I resigned from the AWG in November 2014 when it failed to provide me with any support at a time when Screen NSW informed me that my 43 years of filmmaking experience did not qualify me to apply for Early Stage development funds.

      Regardless of whether or not I was a member of the AWG it had no problem accepting my registration fee for the Conference. It was only when the AWG feared (quite incorrectly, as it happens) that I might write about the Conference, that it decided to ask me to promise not to do so.

      This was a promise I could not make and should never have been asked to make. Over the past week I have had many conversations with friends and fellow filmmakers about this. There are, needless to say, a variety of different opinions about the rightness and/or wrongness of the AWG's ban on me - which is essentially what this amounted to. Had I attended the Conference under these circumstances I would, no doubt, have got involved in a lot of such conversations. I did not want to do so. I was coming to talk 'screenwriting', to meet up with screenwriters I have not seen for years, to meet younger screenwriters and to engage in lively conversation about the art and craft we have all made our life passion.

      On top of this, I wanted to have fun. Being engaged in repetitive conversations about the pros and cons of being told by the AWG I could not write about the Conference would not have been fun.

      I do wish that no-one felt the need to write comments anonymously but do understand why many in this industry do not wish to be critical in public about the actions of those in whose hands their future might lie.

      Finally, because it is time to drop this, I find it amazing (and not in a good way) that fellow screenwriters not only accept the AWG's right to gag writers but have failed to support me in any way.

      Topic closed. Time to move on.

      Delete
    3. I should add to this last comment that two fellow screenwriters did stand up for me and try to convince the AWG that its stance was inappropriate and I thank them for it.

      Delete