[Will Hunt]

My thoughts are along the lines of Toby's and Ian's. There may be a bit of true bias here and there but it's likely equalled or overshadowed by what bias there is against "the other side". You only need to talk about the BBC to a moderate conservative voter to illicit grumbles about pinko loony lefties running riot in the BBC. You have to feel for the BBC because they simply can't please everybody. Any other media outlet is allowed to have their stance and their bias and it is tolerated and expected, but the BBC have to be spotless and it's nigh on impossible. Especially when you consider their comedy output which is dominated by, erm, comedians, who are almost all to the left of centre.

But what we see day in and day out with the villification of the BBC and their staff is way above and beyond some complaining about a bit of bias. Any time that the BBC scrutinise Jeremy Corbyn or hold him to account there are shrieks of Fake News from Corbyn's left, regardless of whether Johnson's right have been similarly challenged. What's happening is that neither side can cope with being criticised and having their flaws held up to the light. Sound familiar? That's because it happening over the pond, except over there it's the Trump administration who are complaining that the mainstream media is against them.

This is such an incredibly dangerous state of affairs because it all contributes to the post-truth age that we currently live in. If simple facts don't accord with your own sentiment then you can easily dismiss them and choose to believe something else and accuse any rebuttal of being fake. If somebody wants something to be true nowadays, then they need only wish it to be true and it will be. Personally, I'd rather get my news from a journalistic organisation that has professional standards to adhere to than social media, which is awash with so much fake or un-nuanced material that anybody who engages with it uncritically is doomed.

Some examples from my feed over the last few days. Diane Abbott flat out lied on her Twitter feed, saying that Ken Clarke had stated that he wouldn't vote Conservative. This popped up on my Facebook news feed, having been shared by a friend. Moments later, there's a meme that somebody's made of John Bercow: it's a still of him remonstrating in the House and alongside it is a quote from him describing how Jeremy Corbyn had never been anti-semitic towards him, and that no Labour MP had been anti-semitic towards him during his time as an MP. So far, so good - but it completely fails to mention that Bercow's next sentence in the interview that it was lifted from (with the Jewish Chronicle, I believe) stated that the Labour Party has got a problem with anti-semitism.
Then there's memes describing Jo Swinson's voting record - this smear is very easily mitigated if not completely debunked (look up this thread), but it won't be because Labour supporters want to believe that Jo Swinson is pure evil and this fits nicely with their narrative.
Then there's this Wreathgate thing. It all comes so thick and fast and spreads in such a viral way that there's no way to combat it. These indiscretions are relatively minor, but it's so easy to pump out much more damaging misinformation, and it will be believed because people want to believe it. It fits with their narrative.


The Wreath, let's just think about this a moment. If you've not seen the original footage is here: https://twitter.com/dinodaly/status/1194039377372033024.
Is it more credible that:
a) the BBC saw that Boris Johnson made a couple of very minor mistakes that could have happened to anyone - he started walking a few moments too early and then corrected himself; and he laid the wreath upside-down (watch the footage - it's impossible to tell which way is up or down on the footage that we see. It doesn't matter. Nobody would have noticed) and decided to try and deceive the public by swapping in a different bit of footage where: the type of wreath he's holding is totally fucking different, the line up includes Tim Farron who is no longer an opposition party leader, and he looks totally different from the rest of the footage.
or b) somebody in the editing suite chopped in the wrong few seconds of footage in the rush before going to broadcast.

Considering that, if this is indeed a cover-up, the public already had access to the live footage and continue to do so on iPlayer, AND they could have done a much better job by just not showing the bit where he started walking a bit early, AND the mistakes that he made were not even a huge deal, I should have thought it was perfectly obvious to any rational person who still had use of their fucking brains that scenario b is far more likely.

Considering that in the past the BBC has happily broadcast footage of Johnson looking like the complete and utter bellend that he is, does it not seem like the worst and most incompetent cover up that's ever taken place, to cover perhaps Johnson's least embarrasing gaffe? In the past couple of months we've been delighted to plenty of footage of Johnson looking like much worse than a complete buffoon (looking visibly rattled at the lectern in Downing Street while being nearly drowned out by cries of "Stop the Coup" - you do know that the BBC could have edited the sound track on that to make those chants inaudible?), I really don't see why they would try and change that now.


On the point of the BBC having staff who's personal politics are to the right, I say, so fucking what? Do doctors do a shitty job at treating Conservative voters when they present in hospital? Does defending a murderer in court make a lawyer a murderer-sympathiser? No, because it's their duty to put their personalities aside and do their job. The BBC's staff are journalists and it's their job to report in a way that accords with the outlet that they work for. Do you know that columnists can change their tone if they're writing for the Sun or the Independent or the Guardian? Do you know that sometimes journalists move to a different paper or station and alter their writing or editorial? Where they get this wrong (as Kuenssberg did) they get a slapped wrist and they do better in future or they get chucked.
Dare I ask? What should the political outlook of the BBC boardroom and editorial staff look like? Should they have to have a quota of Leaver and Remainer supporters on the staff? Should each story have to be worked on by an equal number of people of each persuasion? This is all madness. Sheer madness.

Mark my words. The irrational and hysterical lack of confidence in our institutions (including the BBC) that we see now will lead us down a very dark path indeed.

[i.munro]

My thoughts are along the lines of Toby's and Ian's.

I think you missed my point entirely.

[Will Hunt]

My thoughts are along the lines of Toby's and Ian's.

I think you missed my point entirely.

Sorry, I meant the other Ian.

[dunnyg]

 Just using whichever ian better supports your narrative at the time. Shocking.

[Andy B]

That’s an impressively long rant for someone with a small child Will!

... You only need to talk about the BBC to a moderate conservative voter to illicit grumbles about pinko loony lefties running riot in the BBC...

That doesn’t sound like the language of moderate conservatives that I know.

On the point of the BBC having staff who's personal politics are to the right, I say, so fucking what? Do doctors do a shitty job at treating Conservative voters when they present in hospital? Does defending a murderer in court make a lawyer a murderer-sympathiser? No, because it's their duty to put their personalities aside and do their job. The BBC's staff are journalists and it's their job to report in a way that accords with the outlet that they work for..

Yes, I believe people’s views and prejudices have an effect on their work. To suggest otherwise seems to be an incredibly naive view of human behaviour.

....What should the political outlook of the BBC boardroom and editorial staff look like?....

Reasonably balanced, rather than dominated by affiliates of one party or another. Hence my original question. Maybe there are loads of ex labour in senior positions in the BBC politics team. It’s just that the vast majority of the ones I can think of are conservatives. I believe Andrew Marr has indicated leaning towards socialism in his youth, but I can’t think of any others off the top of my head.
I would have thought that a team from a balanced range of backgrounds would appeal to those keen on what is currently regarded as the “centre ground” at the moment.

[Will Hunt]

Re: people's personal views affecting their work, actually we do expect people to be able to behave neutrally at work. Example: the judiciary. There's lots you can read and listen to at the moment which shows that the judiciary are currently not doing as well as they should in this regard and they are expected to improve.

I'd be grateful if you could answer some quick questions.

If this hypothetical balanced BBC team appeals to the centre ground (which isn't the same as being unbiased) then won't that piss off those who are left/right/up/down?

I'm interested to know how you know what the political leaning of these BBC employees is? Are they party members? Ex party members? Could you give some examples? Obviously former leanings aren't really relevant. Example: Bercow's softening; Ken Clarke started life with a communist grandfather and left wing leanings.

How should those with the proper political inclination be selected? How will you quantify how left/right/whatever they are? Will there be a test?

How can the BBC do this while remaining compliant with the 2010 Equality Act, under which political beliefs are protected characteristics?

[i.munro]

Sorry, I meant the other Ian.

Ah! My apologies.

[petejh]

Andy B is of course alluding to the coming purge from the ministry of public truth of anyone caught engaging in thoughtcrime. The rats are hungry Winston....


edit: forgot my 1984 terms

[Fultonius]

The front page of the Jewish Chronicle today:

The vast majority of British Jews consider Jeremy Corbyn to be an antisemite. In the most recent poll, last month, the figure was 87 per cent.
Putting oneself in the shoes of another person, or another group, can be difficult. But we believe it is important — and urgent — that you do that. Perhaps the fact that nearly half (47 per cent) of the Jewish community said in that same poll that they would “seriously consider” emigrating if Mr Corbyn wins on December 12 will give you an indication of what it feels like to be a British Jew at a time when the official opposition is led by a man widely held to be an antisemite.
There is racism on all sides of politics and it must be called out wherever it is found. History has forced our community to be able to spot extremism as it emerges — and Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader in 2015 is one such example.
Throughout his career, he has allied with and supported antisemites such as Paul Eisen, Stephen Sizer and Raed Salah. He has described organisations like Hamas, whose founding charter commits it to the extermination of every Jew on the planet, as his “friends”. He has laid a wreath to honour terrorists who have murdered Jews. He has insulted “Zionists” — the word used by antisemites when they mean “Jew” because they think it allows them to get away with it — as lacking understanding of “English irony”.
There were some who hoped that he might change as leader. The opposite has happened. The near total inaction of Mr Corbyn and the rest of the Labour leadership in dealing with antisemites in the party has both emboldened them and encouraged others.
Indeed, Mr Corbyn and his allies have actively impeded action against the racists.
Instead of listening to and learning from mainstream Jewish bodies such as the Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council, Mr Corbyn has treated them and their recommendations with contempt — and given support to fringe organisations set up solely to deny the existence of Labour antisemitism.
Is it any wonder Jews worry about the prospect of Mr Corbyn as prime minister?
Yet, while we see all this, we also see an election being fought in which antisemitism in the Labour Party, inspired by its leader, is mentioned only occasionally as an afterthought. Brexit, austerity, the NHS, education and myriad other issues are, of course, vital. But how can the racist views of a party leader — and the deep fear he inspires among an ethnic minority — not be among the most fundamental of issues?
That is why we are seeking your attention. If this man is chosen as our next prime minister, the message will be stark: that our dismay that he could ever be elevated to a prominent role in British politics, and our fears of where that will lead, are irrelevant.
We will have to conclude that those fears and dismay count for nothing.
But we think you do care.
We believe that the overwhelming majority of British people abhor racism.We ask only that, when you cast your vote,you act on that.

I'm not sure what the background of the "87% of British Jews consider Corbyn to be an antisemite" is, but if it's even remotely robust then it's incredibly damning.

So the choice we're left with is a vile Conservative party, a Labour party led by somebody who is likely a racist, or some other party which in the majority of seats will play into the hands of the conservatives.

I am so, so sick and tired of the "Corbyn is Antisemitic" trope that gets rolled out time and time again.

Can I take the time to pick some holes in the above:

The vast majority of British Jews consider Jeremy Corbyn to be an antisemite. In the most recent poll, last month, the figure was 87 per cent.

Can you enlighten us on how many people were surveyed? Last time round, there were only 236000 Jews in the England (around 0.4% of the population). That's not to say their views are not important, but I'm questioning the validity of the poll with such small samples.

Either way, let's take it as a basic premise that "the majority of UK Jewish people feel Corbyn is Antisimitic".

Why do they fell this?

Did the survey ask what their reasoning was?

Did it ask for any examples?

Could they be in any way swayed by an Anti-Corbyn Jewish Press?

Does the fact that "87% of UK Jewish People" feel Corbyn is antisemitic make him one? Don't get me wrong, it clearly shows there is an issue. But is the issue not perhaps one of image?

------------------------

what it feels like to be a British Jew at a time when the official opposition is led by a man widely held to be an antisemite.

  Widely held? Perhaps widely held in the Jewish community. Can you please point to something that shows this is a widely held opinion across society?


---------------------------

He has insulted “Zionists” — the word used by antisemites when they mean “Jew” because they think it allows them to get away with it —

This is absolute tosh and I think it needs stamped out right now. Criticising the State of Israel and it's expansionist and apartheid aims is justified and isn't antisemitic. Zionists love to conflate the two, but they are different.

-------------------

a Labour party led by somebody who is likely a racist

  WHY do you state these things? If he IS racist, SHOW us. I'm open to see it, honestly. I'm no fan of Corbyn, or current Labour (some great MPs aside). But this lazy, baseless repetition of non-facts like this get us no-where.

----------------------

Instead of listening to and learning from mainstream Jewish bodies such as the Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council, Mr Corbyn has treated them and their recommendations with contempt

Their recommendations included calling any criticism of Israel "antisemitism"...  (as far as I recall).

-----------------------

A question - if Corbyn was to become prime minister, what "things" do Jewish people expect to happen to them? What negative actions could possibly occur? I'm genuinely interested in what Jewish people think may befall them?

[Andy B]

Re: people's personal views affecting their work, actually we do expect people to be able to behave neutrally at work. Example: the judiciary. There's lots you can read and listen to at the moment which shows that the judiciary are currently not doing as well as they should in this regard and they are expected to improve.

Which seems to illustrate my previous point, that people find it difficult to be impartial even when it’s expected, quite well.

If this hypothetical balanced BBC team appeals to the centre ground (which isn't the same as being unbiased) then won't that piss off those who are left/right/up/down?

If those people don’t want balanced coverage then Yeah probably. I don’t have a problem with that.

I'm interested to know how you know what the political leaning of these BBC employees is? Are they party members? Ex party members? Could you give some examples? Obviously former leanings aren't really relevant. Example: Bercow's softening; Ken Clarke started life with a communist grandfather and left wing leanings.

Nick Robinson: ex president of oxford uni conservative association and ex president of Conservative party youth group
Andrew Neil: former chair of federation of conservative students, worked directly for the Conservative party in the 70s, long history of partisan editorial in the press (changed papers a fair bit but didn’t change his slant mush as far as I can see)
Evan Davis: one of the creators of the poll tax
Laura keunessberg: see above
I think there are others but can’t remember off the top of my head.

How should those with the proper political inclination be selected? How will you quantify how left/right/whatever they are? Will there be a test?

How can the BBC do this while remaining compliant with the 2010 Equality Act, under which political beliefs are protected characteristics?

Before we start drafting personal specifications and job descriptions, you seem to be drifting into an extreme scenario of your own creation.
I have simply asked what percentage of senior political correspondents, editors and presenters are ex/conservatives. Then stated that I think that coverage would be more balanced if the vast majority weren’t conservatives, as they seem to be. The rest (quotas, tests, quantification of left, right, up and down etc) seems to be made up from your outrage at the above. To humour you re. The 2010 equality act, I am by no means knowledgeable on this but I believe that there are exceptions to this that are enacted for all sorts of job roles all the time. But I may be wrong.

[seankenny]

Fultonius, if you are that bothered about those questions there are plenty of Jewish writers, on the left, who can answer all those questions for you.

Of course it may be the case that you’re not moved or convinced by minority writers explaining why they feel discriminated against by a major politician. It may just all be a “trope”, all just made up, after all they do that sort of thing, don’t they, minorities with an axe to grind?

And anyhow those Jews have nothing to worry about from us nice sensible Brits. So even if Corbyn did hate them... and become PM... well nothing could possibly happen here, could it?

[Fultonius]

Hit me with some links and I'll read them. I realise I'm coming into this from a position of relative ignorance. Even just name some of the writers and I'll look them up. You'd be surprised how hard it is to find this stuff through the press dross that comes up top on google.

And anyhow those Jews have nothing to worry about from us nice sensible Brits. So even if Corbyn did hate them... and become PM... well nothing could possibly happen here, could it?

Again, what, do you really expect to happen? I need this spelled out to me. Can we do this in scenarios? Can you give me a few reasonably foreseeable outcomes if Corbyn becomes PM?

[Will Hunt]

Andy, you've listed 4 presenters who, when they were younger, were members of the party or similar. And then you seem to have inferred that the majority of the BBC's editorial team are Tories. This is mad. And even if those people did once hold those views, does that mean that they are incapable of thinking and reporting in an unbiased way? Of course not. Does the BBC need to have background checks to ensure that they don't let in too many people with former right wing tendencies?
Given what you propose this seems inevitable and necessary?


Alistair, its late and I'm on my phone so I can't really go to town with the quote function. But, some thoughts:
It's weird that you seem to suggest that even if lots and lots of Jewish people think that Corbyn is anti-semitic, then it's not really likely unless the belief is held more widely across society. Oddly enough, Jewish people are more likely to be sensitive to anti-semitism and be subjected to it. Similarly, I have never encountered racist abuse against black people personally (away from social media. I mean in real life interactions), yet ask any black person if they've been subjected to racist abuse in person and I bet they'll tell you all sorts of horror stories.

As I said before, I've no idea how that survey was carried out but I'd it's even half right, it's indicative of a huge problem.

It's worth bearing in mind that, although I don't think you did this intentionally, your post is at best easily interpreted as antisemitic or at worst just plain antisemitic. The bit where you say "the State of Israel and it's expansionist and apartheid aims". Have a look at the IHRA definition. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming what you meant to say, but this is an example of how people on the left end up coming out with antisemitic stuff. They want to criticise certain policies of Netanyahu's government and they end up calling the state of Israel a racist endeavour.

I'm not sure whether Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite, but I am sure that antisemites have not been dealt with properly in the Labour Party. That is either due to complicity from Corbyn and his team or a failure of leadership and neither is acceptable.
I recommend spending an hour watching this with an open mind:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006p8c

[seankenny]

I’m amazed you know enough to know this whole business isn’t true, but not enough to know who is making the counter-arguments. That seems to me a rather one sided understanding.

Try Jonathan Freedland or Nick Cohen for starters.

As for what could happen, let’s consider what has been happening to British Muslims under an institutionally Islamophobic conservative government? A rise in far right crime against them, a general spread of anti-Muslim bigotry and how about the case of Nazanin Ratcliffe? If you were a Jewish journalist or businessman working abroad, would you be confident a Corbyn government had your back?

Then there is also the small issue of racism being normalised, not just against Jews but more widely. If racism is wrong, it’s all wrong. You can’t pick out a minority and ask what could really happen.

[TobyD]

In reply to whoever asked if I was a member of the Liberal Democrat Party, that's really funny, genuinely. Actually I'm not sure if I've ever voted LD in the past, and am not a member of any party. I think I've voted labour more often than anyone else, when I lived in Leeds I voted for Rachel Reeves who, it seemed was a valuable and conscientious MP with a great deal of economic expertise. I don't think I could vote for my current MP, Paul Blomfield or a Corbyn lead party. Blomfield seems to do little for either local or national politics, and though I think they have some good policies and ideals, I dislike what the party has become.

Will, good post on the BBC. I wanted to say the same thing. The weapon of populists is to try to make people believe they can't trust anything or anyone, thus enabling them to deny anything they do. Trump is trying very, very hard to make this work at the moment. Denouncing the BBC as biased is inaccurate and dangerous, noone can be 100% objective, but they do as well as anyone. Health professionals, and all sorts of professions manage to treat people the same whoever they are and I firmly believe that journalists can do the same.

[tomtom]

Re BBC.

If you compare the BBC and Sky news webpages every morning (I look at both) I find the BBC will more often have the Tory lead as the head item than Sky - and sky are more active in directly challenging both parties promotions.

This was very very clear the day of the 1.2 trillion Tory claim day - where bbc just went with the claims and Sky semi tore them apart.

So whilst I wound y say the bbc were the mouthpiece of the government - they lean closer to them than the LP.

[Oldmanmatt]

What TT said.

Though I’ve been thinking on it more, as to why we seem to have reached different conclusions on their cant.

I don’t watch television news. I read it, as if it were the morning papers, the way TT describes.
(Also, the FT, Torygraph, Groaniard and not-so-Independent).

I think TT is correct on the lead thing, but I also think the BBC site has a (literally) larger emphasis, above the metaphorical fold, on the opinion pieces of the day.
That is frequently Laura, and she is equally frequently, less than impartial; whilst rarely openly partisan.
Her Sky counterpart, is (I think) Kay and she’s a more balanced commentator, in my opinion.

It’s not as if I’m pro-Labour, or even a bit pinkish. Nor am I suggesting a deep blue hue for the Beeb’s colour pieces and articles; merely that they seem to be a delicate, off-white, with a subtle hint of faint Azure.

Obviously, I’ve zeroed in on two particular corespondents, as examples. Probably because I usually get drawn to their columns for reasons I cannot explain, though I feel they are the two that first spring to mind. Figureheads, if you will.

[Will Hunt]

There's quite a spectrum of opinions about the BBC. I don't recognise the position that they are the Tory's mouthpiece/all corrupt/blah blah, but I'd like to explore Matt and Tom's take some more. Over the next couple of weeks, could you post some examples, please? Maybe there could be a split thread about Fake News/Media Bias?

[Offwidth]

What TT said.

Though I’ve been thinking on it more, as to why we seem to have reached different conclusions on their cant.

I don’t watch television news. I read it, as if it were the morning papers, the way TT describes.
(Also, the FT, Torygraph, Groaniard and not-so-Independent).

I think TT is correct on the lead thing, but I also think the BBC site has a (literally) larger emphasis, above the metaphorical fold, on the opinion pieces of the day.
That is frequently Laura, and she is equally frequently, less than impartial; whilst rarely openly partisan.
Her Sky counterpart, is (I think) Kay and she’s a more balanced commentator, in my opinion.

It’s not as if I’m pro-Labour, or even a bit pinkish. Nor am I suggesting a deep blue hue for the Beeb’s colour pieces and articles; merely that they seem to be a delicate, off-white, with a subtle hint of faint Azure.

Obviously, I’ve zeroed in on two particular corespondents, as examples. Probably because I usually get drawn to their columns for reasons I cannot explain, though I feel they are the two that first spring to mind. Figureheads, if you will.

Like you I'm a centrist and no fan of Corbyn but I see a clear blue tinge, not that that is a big issue if the journalists remain professional,  yet thats not always true. The biggest example of clear unprofessional behaviour to Corbyn's Labour bias, is Andrew Neil, whom is at times plain rude to anyone left of centre left. His late show interview with Owen Jones about a year ago was embarrassing.

The blandness and bias when dealing with the government  is really annoying at times.  Two examples from the main BBC news today: Gauke, a recent tory minister, stands as an independant and says don't vote for tory brexiters, vote Lib Dem instead, to block a brexiting majority for Boris,  with some clear detail as to why, and Gove is allowed to get away with pure spin in return;  Ashworth announces Labour spending plans for the NHS (a fraction more spending than the tories) and gets repeatedly asked questions on clear bullshit tory propaganda on the costs to the NHS after the election of a 4 day week (which is currently only a proposal for investigation in the following Parliament).

[tomtom]

I’m quite surprised at the lacklustre labour performances... their activists are certainly geed up - but Corbyn looks like he needs a week off, ashworth today was more bland than an empty student house... where are the big hitters (are there any left?) thornberry, Starmer and err err you know the other ones.

It’s not as if the Tories are dripping with Charisma either - aside from the blonde stupid leader.

[Andy B]

Andy, you've listed 4 presenters who, when they were younger, were members of the party or similar.

What I actually said was:

Nick Robinson: ex president of oxford uni conservative association and ex president of Conservative party youth group
Andrew Neil: former chair of federation of conservative students, worked directly for the Conservative party in the 70s, long history of partisan editorial in the press (changed papers a fair bit but didn’t change his slant mush as far as I can see)
Evan Davis: one of the creators of the poll tax
Laura keunessberg: see above
I think there are others but can’t remember off the top of my head.

keunessberg’s forced apology is pretty recent, and Andrew neil’s examples of bias are numerous over a long period (see offwidth’s post above and have a read of his wiki entry), and ongoing.

And then you seem to have inferred that the majority of the BBC's editorial team are Tories. This is mad.

What i actually said was:

I have simply asked what percentage of senior political correspondents, editors and presenters are ex/conservatives. Then stated that I think that coverage would be more balanced if the vast majority weren’t conservatives, as they seem to be.

Feel free to list the equivalent ex/labour affiliates in similar positions within the bbc political editorial team if this isn’t the case.

And even if those people did once hold those views, does that mean that they are incapable of thinking and reporting in an unbiased way? Of course not.

As I said:

Yes, I believe people’s views and prejudices have an effect on their work. To suggest otherwise seems to be an incredibly naive view of human behaviour.

This applies to us all.

[mrjonathanr]

Hit me with some links and I'll read them. I realise I'm coming into this from a position of relative ignorance.

I’d say that is pretty obvious.

Let me increase your sample size of British Jews by one Fultonius.

He’s an anti-Semite because he tolerates the most disgusting abuse of Jews in the Labour Party and is utterly blind to the cancer in the Labour Party which has grown since he became leader.

[Somebody's Fool]

I thought this was a good article explaining why the differing factions of the Labour right, combined with a sympathetic media have seized upon the antisemitism claims and run with it for so long.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/antisemitism-cosmopolitanism-and-politics-of-labour-s-old-and-new-right-wings/

That's not to deny there might be some elements of it with party members. However, I've not actually seen any evidence of it yet - and I think we might have done by now considering how much mileage the media got out of Corbyn liking that mural. Whenever it's got to a stage where police have got involved, e.g. Luciana Berger, it's always the far right, not left.

One trick the media often use is to mention, in articles about Labour antisemitism, that Luciana Berger has had people convicted for abuse, without mentioning the affiliation of those involved. It's just left for the reader to make the 'obvious' connection.

Another thing worth looking at is the film The Lobby by al jazeera on youtube. From the incident at conference caught on undercover footage, it's quite apparent that the likes of Joan Ryan and Chuka Umuna are looking to create incidents where there aren't any.

[TobyD]

...Ashworth announces Labour spending plans for the NHS (a fraction more spending than the tories) and gets repeatedly asked questions on clear bullshit tory propaganda on the costs to the NHS after the election of a 4 day week (which is currently only a proposal for investigation in the following Parliament).

I think you have a point,  although on a lot of the BBC coverage when they've brought  the fact check guy in, they've been clear that the Labour NHS plans are significantly better planned and specific,  (although they contain no reform, which I think is rather odd) whereas the conservative plans are rather woolly non specific and seem to be constructed as though to be reneged. I think,  however that there is a valuable point to be made in that the ideological aims of the 32hr week and an expanded health service need very careful consideration,  as they are bordering on  impossible without a considerably expanded workforce. 

[Will Hunt]

I thought this was a good article explaining why the differing factions of the Labour right, combined with a sympathetic media have seized upon the antisemitism claims and run with it for so long.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/antisemitism-cosmopolitanism-and-politics-of-labour-s-old-and-new-right-wings/

I honestly don't even know where to begin with that. Was it written in Jezza's own bunker? It obsesses over smearing anybody who might not agree with Corbyn and talks very little about antisemitism - only coming to it in the most roundabout fashion. I'm surprised to see such an article linked on the same page that people are complaining about media bias.

I'm also surprised that more fuss hasn't been made over Fultonius' post. It starts off being completely outraged by claims of Corbyn being antisemitic and then launches headlong into a post which argues that the Jewish population is not capable of identifying antisemitic behaviour, uses careless wording that alludes to the antisemitic idea that the press is controlled by Jewish interests ("Could they be in any way swayed by an Anti-Corbyn Jewish Press?"), and then caps it all by describing the aims of the state of Israel as "apartheid".

You couldn't make it up.