Journalistic Impartiality

Trade union conferences are so much fun. A parade of moonbattery of many and varied kinds. Last week the National Union of Teachers was whining about "racism", now the National Union of Journalists has produced a variation on the same theme. By which I mean, that they have voted for an anti-Semitic boycott of the state of Israel:

Britian's National Union of Journalists has voted at its annual meeting for a boycott of Israeli goods as part of a protest against the Second Lebanon War, the British daily Guardian reported on its Web site Friday evening.

The vote was carried 66 to 54 - a result that met with mixed responses from the NJU [sic] delegates present.

The motion came during a series of motions on international affairs and read: "This ADM [annual delegate meeting] calls for a boycott of Israeli goods similar to those boycotts in the struggles against apartheid South Africa led by trade unions and the TUC [Trades Union Congress] to demand sanctions be imposed on Israel by the British government and the United Nations."

(Hat-tip: LGF)

How can we trust anything journalists say about the situation in the Middle East, knowing that they have voted for this appallingly biased motion (which, incidentally, made no reference to the regular attacks perpetrated against Israel by the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah)? The short answer is, we can't. The problem is that many people will never read about this motion, and will continue to believe what they're told by the media.

The NUJ is of course not renowned for its impartiality. It has, for example, a longstanding grudge against a certain legal political party. Can anyone guess which one? I'll give you a hint: it's not the Lib Dems.

Still, this motion is yet another example of the appalling state of the MSM. It also illustrates, I think, the importance of the blogosphere, in providing a genuine voice for the millions of people (fascist, bigoted scum that they are) who are not left-liberal moonbats and dhimmis.