BBC journalists blog to overturn boycott May 23, 2007
Posted by rosieniven in Israel boycott, NUJ.trackback
BBC union members have launched a blog highlighting their campaign to persuade the union to reverse a policy calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. They have launched a petition to get the ban overturned. This will be discussed by the union’s policy committee on 8 June 2007.
The following motion, with more than 250 names attached, was sent to the General Secretary on April 26th:
“As BBC journalists and NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of a corporation which prides itself on providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in any conflict. We call on the union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British journalists are viewed at home and abroad.”
NUJ Policy 
As much as I agree with the spirit of this petition and disagree with the motion itself, I find myself opposing it.
As was discussed at the last London Magazine Branch meeting, the main point about about this union is the democratic way in which things are decided.
Yes I think common sense went out the window with this motion, but it was decided democratically by our decision-making body; delegates at ADM.
Sure have a campaign to bring a motion to next year’s ADM to overturn this motion, but who is the BBC asking to overturn the ban, the NEC? The Policy committee?
As far as I’m aware, neither has the power to over-rule the decision of ADM. If I am wrong let me know.
I find myself agreeing with you Niall. The closing date for motions for next year’s conference is six months tomorrow. Waiting until then seems the obvious thing to do.
I’m glad they started this blog though. It’s a much more constructive way of voicing your opposition to the motion than throwing your toys out of the pram and threatening to leave the union – as one or two high profile members have done.
My guess is they probably realise that campaigning to overturn the ban next ADM would be more straightforward. They may think campaigning to overturn it now may attract more attention and encourage their members to enagage in the debate while the momentum is there. In six months time all this might be forgotten.
I agree that its a democratic decision and that is final (well at least until next year). I also agree with the motion, however, I don’t necessarily think it was tactically a good motion to try and put through.
However, this made me laugh, the BBC Radio Foyle motion from their blog (particularly the last sentance).
“As broadcasting journalists and NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. We cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in any conflict.”
This is laughable when you consider all the analysis done on the conflict. Particuarly from the Glasgow University Media Group. Greg Philo one of the researchers reported in the Guardian reported in April 2004:
The analysis of news content suggests that the first of these perspectives tends to dominate news reporting. Between October and December 2001, for example, on BBC1 and ITV news, Israelis were said to be responding to what had been done to them about six times as often as the Palestinians. This pattern of reporting clearly influenced how some viewers understood the conflict. As one young woman put it: “You always think of the Palestinians as being really aggressive because of the stories you hear on the news … I always think the Israelis are fighting back.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,1260844,00.html
There are many other pieces of research and documents along similar lines.
Sorry I didn’t give whole quote so it may sound out of context:
There are very distinct and different perspectives on this conflict which should be represented on the news. The Israeli authorities and much of the Israeli population see the issue in terms of their security and the survival of the state in the face of threats from terrorists and hostile neighbours. They present their own actions as a retaliation to attacks. The Palestinians see themselves as resisting a brutal military occupation by people who have taken their land, water and homes and who are denying them the possibility of their own state.
The analysis of news content suggests that the first of these perspectives tends to dominate news reporting. Between October and December 2001, for example, on BBC1 and ITV news, Israelis were said to be responding to what had been done to them about six times as often as the Palestinians. This pattern of reporting clearly influenced how some viewers understood the conflict. As one young woman put it: “You always think of the Palestinians as being really aggressive because of the stories you hear on the news … I always think the Israelis are fighting back.”