Topics about the Labour Party
:sunglasses: 82.9 % :grinning: 7.3 % 🧥 2.4 % 😟 2.4 % :cry: 2.4 % :shit: 2.4 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
#555479
Media watch group media reform have done some unfortunate research.
We have long had serious concerns about the lack of due impartiality and accuracy in the reporting of allegations of antisemitism against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party. The recent report by the Media Reform Coalition examining coverage of Labour’s revised code of conduct on antisemitism shows that we are right to be concerned.

The research examined over 250 articles and broadcast news segments and found over 90 examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting. In relation to the IHRA definition of antisemitism that was at the heart of the dispute, the research found evidence of “overwhelming source imbalance” in which critics of Labour’s code of conduct dominated coverage, with nearly 50% of Guardian reports, for example, failing to include any quotes from those defending the code or critiquing the IHRA definition. Moreover, key contextual facts about the IHRA definition – for example that it has only been formally adopted by eight countries (and only six of the IHRA member states) – were consistently excluded.

The researchers conclude these were not occasional lapses in judgment but “systematic reporting failures” that served to weaken the Labour leadership and to bolster its opponents within and outside of the party.

It is of course entirely appropriate and necessary for our major news outlets to report on the horrors of antisemitism, but wrong to present it as an issue specific to the Labour party.

In covering the allegations that Labour is now “institutionally antisemitic”, there have been inaccuracies, clear distortions and revealing omissions across our most popular media platforms. We believe that significant parts of the UK media have failed their audiences by producing flawed reports that have contributed to an undeserved witch-hunt against the Labour leader and misdirected public attention away from antisemitism elsewhere, including on the far right, which is ascendant in much of Europe.
#555492
I read the report. It's main bone of contention seems to be the precise terminology used with the IHRA definition of antisemitism and how widely adopted in full it is, and the exact terms used when reporting this. Is there an issue of media bias in the media against Labour? Sure - but then there always has been as far as I can remember.

The nitpick here seems (in brief) to revolve around letting off other groups lightly, questioning 'the good guys' too much, and semantics. What in forum terms would be deemed whataboutery.

It then goes on to complain about Corbyn's mural blunder being mentioned. Because apparently it should be taken in isolation, which is a bizarre conclusion. Similarly with the other case study on Ruth Smeeth. It seems to argue every incident should be taken on face value by the media, every single time, as if there is no common thread.

In summary, it's a strange picking of 3 instances (and only 3). The bulk of it revolves around the precise reporting of sign-up to a working definition and not, for example, the incident with the wreath laying. That is, if you wanted to reach a certain conclusion this sort of technical example is ideal - the report can easily (and to be fair, accurately) claim 'mis-reporting' because of the lack of detail/generalisation in the press when reporting on the IHRA definition. It doesn't deal at all with the issues that have occurred that may breach the IHRA, doesn't really show much that we didn't know re: the bias of the right-wing owned press, and it seems to conclude mainly that Labour/Corbyn should get an easier ride. Which I agree with on the principle of right-wing media bias as I suspect we all would, but not in the practice of letting them off of genuine issues via obfuscation.

In essence, it implies from the summaries and letter to the Guardian that the media misled the public on Labour antisemitism issues. The inference being it isn't a problem, but what the report really says is nothing to do with whether antisemitism in labour is a problem. It's like putting out a document saying '101 flaws found with new Ford Fiesta' which would clearly lead you to assume the car is a deathtrap, but when you read the report it transpires the issues are all related to the glove compartment.

This from the report is key, really:
In sum, although our findings do not engage directly with the controversy – shedding no further light on what is antisemitism nor how prevalent it is within the Labour Party - we can say with some certainty that there have been prevalent errors, omissions and skews in the mainstream coverage.
Yes, there have been errors - again, we all probably knew that anyway. But from the comments it's already being seized upon as 'evidence' that there is no antisemitism issue and that it is all another anti-Corbyn conspiracy, that there is nothing to address etc. etc. Which I suspect some of the signatories to it will do nothing to correct, and further some others will use as a stick to beat genuinely concerned party members - particularly Jewish ones.

It doesn't change much in reality - Corbyn has a lot of baggage on this, the reaction of the leadership on antisemitism issues was slow and poor, the scrabble to defend Corbyn at all costs has brought some truly awful personalities to the fore, and it's arguable the fact this report even has to exist is a sign that some still feel the need to whine 'unfair!' rather than deal with or acknowledge these real issues.
visage, youngian liked this
#555531
The media never mention how Jez has given Chris WIlliamson a bollocking, or distanced himself from Tony Greenstein, do they? And what about that time he sent out a strong message by getting Pete Willsman off the NEC?

Oh hang on.

But I'm sure the media do misrepresent Labour on anti-Semitism, as on lots else. I don't think most of us have ever denied it.
#557799
Good on her.

https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/10/wh ... bour-party
It was an easy, if apposite, riposte. But I was done with patient argument and trying to appear less emotional than I felt: done with trying, I am almost ashamed to say, not to appear the hyperbolic Jew of anti-Semitic ridicule. It was 2am and I had been arguing about Corbyn and the problem of left-wing anti-Semitism for almost three hours. I was nearing breaking point.

My adversary was Sean*, the guy I’d been seeing since January – by now, it was September – and who I really liked. So when he’d asked earlier in the evening if we should meet next Saturday and I said no, that I had a dinner date with a cousin who was over from Israel, and Sean replied, laughing, “Ooh, do you think she’ll be scared to set foot on our Jewish unfriendly soil?”, I asked him calmly what he meant. And when he replied, still chuckling, that Labour’s anti-Semitism had been massively overstated, that it was essentially a tawdry attempt to smear Corbyn, I took a deep breath and answered him properly.
 
By Boiler
Posts
#557861
Here we go.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46070229
Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.

Met Police chief Cressida Dick told the BBC her officers were assessing online material because it appears "there may have been a crime committed".

It comes after LBC Radio obtained what it said was an internal Labour document detailing 45 cases, involving messages posted by members on social media.
#557870
It's interesting to see that the reaction of Corbynites to this being investigated is basically exactly the same as that of Aaron Banks after it was announced he was being investigated.
#557882
It's the speed and sheer nakedness of the back-flips that I find so breathtaking.

Yesterday, investigating hate-crime was a Bad Thing and coppers should be out catching burglars, something with which Cressida Dick agreed. Today, the full force of her agency is being mustered against - er - hate-crime.

Either, hating on certain groups is tacitly being given the green light or those "political sensitivities" run deeper than we thought.
#557883
Kreuzberger wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 12:25 pm
It's the speed and sheer nakedness of the back-flips that I find so breathtaking.

Yesterday, investigating hate-crime was a Bad Thing and coppers should be out catching burglars, something with which Cressida Dick agreed. Today, the full force of her agency is being mustered against - er - hate-crime.

Either, hating on certain groups is tacitly being given the green light or those "political sensitivities" run deeper than we thought.
Except it isn't the full weight of the met is it? Also the reason why they are investigating this is because a leaked dossier was passed onto them, containing 45 incidents 17 of which should be investigated according to a former senior police officer.
  • 1
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 44
Brexit Fuckwit Thread

Indeed. If the shit fits, wear it - as I believe S[…]

David Liddington?

Men in suits. French doors. Glass of whisky an[…]

This could only get better if a small-person clow[…]

Sarah Vine aka Mrs Gove

First Lady MacBeth. FTFY - as I believe you tech[…]