It's good to see Alan Rusbridger's remarks on the NUJ's recent boycott decision:
The editor of the London Guardian on Tuesday condemned as "misguided" a resolution passed by a British journalists' union last week that called for a boycott of Israeli goods.The same report gives other reaction from journalists, including this:"The Guardian disapproves of these kinds of boycotts and does not think they serve a useful purpose. It was a misguided motion," editor of the British daily Alan Rusbridger told Haaretz by telephone last night.
The resolutions seem to go against some of the core ethics of journalism that we are here to protect, such as balance and objectivity. I don't think any representative body of journalists should be taking a side.See here and here for more of the same.
This gem, just by the way, is from an NUJ explanation - posted at Harry's Place - for its boycott vote:
The union has not and never would adopt a line on how any issue should be reported.On the face of it that clashes with point 3 of the NUJ's code of conduct:
A journalist shall strive to ensure that the information he/she disseminates is fair and accurate, avoid the expression of comment and conjecture as established fact and falsification by distortion, selection or misrepresentation.But let that pass. It's the sublime construction, in a statement on behalf of a union of journalists... 'Like... er... this union would never have adopt and didn't now adopted such a thing, innit.'