A media row has broken out over the National Union of Journalists’ vote at its national conference in April to call for a trade union-led boycott of Israeli goods. Much criticism of the vote has been framed in terms of maintaining journalists’ impartiality and balance. Regardless of how you feel about the boycott issue, for anti-war journalists the dispute raises a key question – can we take a stand on contentious political issues without sacrificing professional standards of accuracy and balance in our work?
The Guardian’s recent leader on the NUJ’s boycott vote is typical of the No position on this issue, accusing the NUJ of sacrificing journalists’ “general integrity” and “casting doubts on whether they can truly approach their work in a spirit of fairness and distinterested inquiry”. If we put to one side the condescending tone of this editorial, what are the serious issues at stake?
If we are concerned about our credibility being undermined, let’s first remember why it’s not particularly high in the first place. Journalists usually rank just above MPs and estate agents in BBC polls on respect for the professions. Going along with the Iraqi WMD farce didn’t do journalism’s credibility any favours — which suggests that the NUJ’s yearly conference votes against the war and for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq have been a credit to the profession, rather than undermining it.
Moreover, the Guardian’s notion that British journalists “approach their work in a spirit of fairness and distinterested inquiry” might soothe a few senior editorial egos, but it is hardly convincing. Since when was the British media fair to anybody (let alone the Palestinians)? Much political activism in the British media masquerades as balanced reporting. It would be more honest for journalists to be open about their views than to hide behind the myth of professional impartiality – a central theme of Phillip Knightley’s classic book on war reporting, The First Casualty.The British media are well known for their robust editorial positions on all sorts of political issues, yet there is no suggestion that journalists might be compromised by working for these media. So why should we be compromised by taking political positions ourselves? Peter Wilby put this point very well in his column in the MediaGuardian, commenting on the NUJ’s boycott vote (which he opposed):
“Many newspapers take strong positions in their leader columns. These positions are determined by the bosses. Mere hacks – most of whom don’t have columns – should be allowed their say too. If individual correspondents can distance themselves from their paper’s opinions, they can easily do so from their union’s.”
Moreover, journalists’ politics inform all sorts of judgments we make about news and coverage, how we select and investigate our subject matter. Vigorous politics – of both right and left – therefore often stimulate the best reporting. Paul Foot was named journalist of the decade at the What the Papers Say awards in 2000 – no one could accuse him of being politically “neutral”.
So it is a myth that journalists leave our political views at the door when we come into work. Any professional understands how to excise their opinions from the work they produce, we apply standards and methods to make what we write stand above mere opinion. But it is simplistic to suggest that journalists should jettison their personal views. Worse, it is a recipe for stifling dissent in the newsroom.
If it becomes taboo for journalists to hold political views, the right-wing consensus among senior editors and managers will simply go unquestioned and unchallenged. A demand that journalists and their organisations cease to be political hands control of our copy to our employers. We cannot allow governments, the Richard Desmonds and Rupert Murdochs to become the arbiters of editorial standards.
In short, being political is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition of being a good journalist. On the question of the “war on terror”, being actively anti-war clearly means standing up for better journalism. Just look at what has happened to the British media since the invasion of Iraq. Had the peace movement been successful in preventing the war, there would have been:
- No shadow cast over much of the British media for swallowing the government’s lies;
- No Hutton report and no Alastair Campbell gloating over bullying the BBC into submission;
- No Mark Thompson introducing swingeing job cuts across the BBC;
- The Mirror would still be a serious newspaper, rather than a pale imitation of the Sun.
Media Workers Against the War is about trying to strengthen the tradition of political activism among journalists. Journalists need to be inspired, supported and encouraged to fearlessly report the big issues of our time, rather than go along with the preferences of governments and proprietors. We have much work to do to achieve this aim.
MWAW committee
Regarding the NUJ’s boycott vote, much bluster in the media might have been avoided had commentators acquainted themselves more fully with the motion itself, the speech moving the motion, and the NUJ’s statement on the matter. Media Workers Against the War is not directly engaged in this issue, however. Our primary concern is to develop the broad anti-war movement among media workers to bring into it all those who are appalled by the “war on terror” and the way it is reported.
