Journalists' union votes against Israel
Reviewed by Stuart H. Loory Posted Mon, Jun 25 2007
We have always been concerned in the news business about ethical problems such as conflicts of interest, plagiarism or fakery, and when such possibilities arise we discuss them with passion. As this is written, such a case involves the top management of The Wall Street Journal and how it handled the story about Rupert Murdoch's attempts to buy the Dow Jones Company, publishers of The Journal. Paul Steiger, the paper's managing editor, received a confidential note from Murdoch revealing that he had made the offer. Steiger decided not to reveal the note to others on the staff, precluding the possibility of a story.
It was left to CNBC, the cable business channel run by the National Broadcasting Co. in the United States, to break the story. It later developed that after the offer was made and before it was revealed, some insiders made millions of dollars purchasing stock options low and selling them high.
The question debated now is: Should Steiger have ordered a story done when he received the original information? From the journalist's point of view the answer is simple: certainly. Murdoch's letter provided a good beat, and the subsequent story would have prevented dangerous shenanigans within the stock market.
The matter seems so open-and-shut that the principles involved do not really deserve much discussion; although what happened during the time Murdoch made his offer and it was disclosed certainly does warrant more attention by journalists.
But there is another matter of journalism ethics that deserves far more coverage than it has been getting, and that is the vote taken by the National Union of Journalists in the United Kingdom to “support a boycott of Israeli goods” and asking the Trades Union Congress to demand sanctions be imposed on Israel by the British government and the United Nations.”
The NUJ is the largest journalists' trade union in the world with 25,000 members. The anti-Israel vote was met with criticism by some members. One member wrote a column condemning it and announced he had resigned from the union. The Guardian criticized the resolution, as well.
NUJ General Secretary Jeremy Dear wrote in reply to the criticism that he had spent a lifetime trying to democratize unions. Presumably that meant journalists should have the right to go public in a formal manner to protest political, social or economic policies that have nothing to do with their own working conditions and welfare.
Actually, journalistic organizations should not take part in a political debate. It is proper for them to criticize governments that deal harshly, dangerously, inhumanely or illegally with journalists, whether those countries be democracies such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel or France, as well as with undemocratic countries like Russia, Zimbabwe, China or the Palestinian Authority.
Not only is there no problem with that. A good case is being made increasingly that it is necessary at a time when journalists are under some pressure, and even risking death, that they speak out in numbers and with some organizational support behind them.
In a free society, however, journalists must maintain the ability – and the appearance of that ability – to report, interpret and comment without fear or favor. It will be very difficult for British journalists, whether or not they are members of the NUJ, to find sources in Israel who trust them. The NUJ deserves criticism not only for the position it took but also because of its harsh actions.
Any impartial group of people – and newspeople want to be known for impartiality – has to admit that in the Middle East there are atrocities committed by both sides.
Yes, Israel is culpable. But the Lebanese War started last year because Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid, refused to release them and shelled Israeli civilians regularly during the war. Neither was there any mention of suicide bombings that have plagued Israel during the years of Intifada II.
There are journalists in free societies who take their responsibility for impartiality so seriously that they do not even exercise their right and duty as a citizen to vote. That may be going too far in the wrong direction, but, on the other hand, it does emphasize the need for impartiality that all professional organizations in a free society should follow.
Let's hope that Jeremy Dear learned to curb his desire to democratize his union by encouraging it to take stands on political issues. Let's hope that the NUJ comes to consider what happened at its annual conference in Manchester as an aberration not to be repeated. And let's hope that journalists in other countries do not follow the lead of the world's largest journalists union. Unionism around the world is suffering a crisis of confidence these days that the NUJ has only exacerbated.
Stuart H. Loory
Stuart H. Loory, an international journalist, is Lee Hills Chair in Free-Press Studies at the Missouri School of Journalism and editor of Global Journalist. Loory worked for TBS/CNN from October 1980 to March 1997 as CNN vice president and Washington managing editor, Moscow correspondent, and executive producer, among other positions. Before joining TBS/CNN, Loory spent 28 years in the newspaper business. Among his positions were Moscow bureau chief for the New York Herald Tribune and White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times during the last years of Lyndon Johnson and the first two of Richard Nixon. He was a member of the Nixon enemies list. He was later managing editor of the Chicago Sun Times where he supervised several award-winning investigative reporting series.