Local government minister Bob Neill MP (Con) recently wrote to local authorities as follows: "Bloggers, tweeters, residents with their own websites and users of Facebook and YouTube are increasingly a part of the modern world, blurring the lines between professional journalists and the public. There are recent stories about people being ejected from council meetings for blogging, tweeting or filming. This potentially is at odds with the fundamentals of democracy, and I want to encourage all councils to take a welcoming approach to those who want to bring local news stories to a wider audience."
Excellent advice. But some councils have been slow to get the message. These notably include the famous Tory "easyCouncil" of Barnet in north London, whose leader Lynne Hillan told the Barnet Times:
"The current advice according to the constitution does not allow filming in the council chamber … The only thing we will do is consider responsible media requests, and they are the only thing we would allow at this stage … I do not think we would consider a request from bloggers. Only respectable media would be considered."
The statement raises an array of questions. What defines some parts of the media as "respectable" and "responsible" and others not? Who does the category "blogger" include? Can you be a blogger and respectable at the same time?
I've a hunch that Councillor Hillan had a certain person in mind. His name is Roger Tichborne, publisher of a blog called Barnet Eye. The Eye campaigns tirelessly against her administration. Its author's greatest triumph was successfully complaining that a Tory colleague – the quite astounding Brian Coleman – had breached the council's code of conduct by sending him an abusive email.
Tichborne networks with fellow local online citizen journalists – some of theme dissident Barnet Tories – in one of London's best-blogged boroughs. Following Hillan's remarks he attended a council committee meeting as a member of the public and filmed it until another Tory councillor ticked him off, unimpressed by the unrespectable blogger's protesting that he had legal opinion on his side.
But the law shouldn't need to be dragged into this. Neither should those increasingly meaningless distinctions between citizen journalists and the professional media, not least because plenty of the latter are far less "respectable" or "responsible" than plenty of the former.
Little love may be lost between Tichborne and the Tories responsible for emptying his bins, but Barnet town hall should still welcome him.
It should welcome anyone prepared to sit through deliberations in its democratic chambers and convey these to a wider public either live or later and whether by blogging, tweeting, audio recording, filming or standing on a street corner waving semaphore flags. So should every town hall in the land.
In recent weeks public galleries in London and elsewhere have been filled with hecklers ritually denouncing Labour councils in particular for passing on "Tory cuts" in their budgets. Many of the outraged were ignorant, boring and stuffed with cost-free piety, but at least they were there. Mostly, those galleries are close to empty. The same often goes for the press seats. Councils slammed for publishing their own freesheets often plead that their local papers take little notice of what they do. Often, they have a point.
Citizen journalists can help to fill the void. Councils wary of licensing the amateur hordes should look to the top tier of local government in the capital. At London's City Hall, the Thames-side glass bauble that contains London's mayors, the main debating chamber enshrines in its very seating plan the non-recognition of any amateur-professional distinction. There is no special section for the press. Instead, anyone at all – the Guardian, Mayorwatch, Adam Beinkov, CyberBoris a school student on an educational trip – can liveblog or tweet, and lots of people do.
Still photography is discouraged after the first 20 minutes of each session and the use of flash banned, but in both cases the restraints are simply to prevent noise and other distractions. All proceedings are webcast, but if I wanted to point my digicam at Boris Johnson or the assembly members I'd be as free to do so as BBC London's camera crews so long as I created no disturbance. I'm told a simple principle applies: "It's a public meeting. It should be public."
Town halls should take Bob Neill's advice, and do the same. Who knows, the more open their policies, the more numerous, civil, varied and well-informed those in their public galleries might become, to the benefit of the voters they serve. How could they lose?
