Both before and since publishing our research, which raised serious concerns about the Guardian’s coverage of antisemitism within the Labour Party, we have made strident efforts to engage in constructive dialogue with both editorial and public affairs staff. Unfortunately, these efforts do not appear to have borne any fruit to date. There has also been no reporting or commenting on our research, despite the significant public debate and controversy that it sparked. We nevertheless continue to hope and expect that a reflexive and considered response to the evidence will be forthcoming..
—
Dear Mr Chadwick
On 1st October I submitted a formal complaint in regards to the evidence of inaccurate and misleading coverage on TheGuardian.com of antisemitism in the Labour Party. This evidence was documented in a research report produced for the Media Reform Coalition which found marked skews in sourcing, false statements or assertions of fact, and a systematic pattern of highly contentious claims by sources that were not duly challenged or qualified in news reports. These problems were predominantly found in coverage of the controversy surrounding Labour’s revised code of conduct during the summer of 2018.
Since the initial submission of my complaint, I responded in a full and timely manner to a succession of detailed email queries that you raised, culminating in a further submission of raw data for our research on 4th October. This bespoke dataset was put together so as to make it as accessible and easily navigable as possible, and to make clear the evidence that we found pertaining specifically to coverage on TheGuardian.com.
Having taken the time to respond to your queries in this way, I requested an indicative timeframe as to when I might expect a response. I note that on 1st October you stated that you had read the research report and on 5th October, in response to my request for an indicative timeframe, you stated that “When I have had an opportunity to look at the material I will be back in touch.” I have not heard from you since.
I also note that the Reader’s Editor guidelines states that “We aim to give a substantive response to your complaint within 28 days of receiving all the necessary information to allow us to investigate. However, this may take longer in more complex cases where more information is required, or where journalists are away or unreachable.”
Since I have received no requests for further information since 4th October, and have not been made aware of any other issues that may be unusually obstructing your investigation, I wish to raise additional concern about the apparent absence of a timely response to my complaint on this issue.
As you are aware, the research underpinning my complaint has been endorsed by a wide range of experts as well as public figures. It has sparked considerable debate on social media platforms and attracted significant attention from independent media outlets. Neither the Guardian nor Observer newspapers have reported or commented on the research. That is a matter of editorial judgement. But I’m sure you will agree that readers and members – as well as the wider public – deserve a timely and comprehensive response to the controversial findings. If any of the evidence of editorial failures is rejected, we need to know which aspects specifically and why. If any of the evidence is accepted, we need to know what kind of remedies will be applied to address the problems identified. Under the circumstances, anything less will inevitably give rise to further, and in some ways more fundamental concerns about the Guardian’s commitment to accountability, as well as the efficacy and integrity of the complaints process.
Yours sincerely
Dr Justin Schlosberg
For and on behalf of the Media Reform Coalition
This is great work. I want to contribute in any way I can to raising the profile of this complaint. I will write to The Guardian / Observer myself to let them know that this is the very reason I no longer buy their newspapers nor donate to their ‘journalism’.
Well done in your letter to Paul Chadwick of the Guardian. You might like to know that I wrote to him and to Katherine Viner in August about media bias, then on receiving no reply, to the Chair of The Scott Trust who assured me I would receive a response. When nothing was forthcoming I updated the many pages of research I had sent them to include your report. I then resent these documents to every member of the board with a personalised letter suggesting that an inquiry should be held into the persistent misreporting of the issue of anti-semitism. I will now resend all of the information to Mr. Chadwick, citing your complaint.
I have noticed on my occasional reading – having cancelled my subscription – that the relentless aggression seems to have moderated somewhat.
ps. Hope you have written to the other broadsheets including the Independent…
I, and a number of people I know, have stopped buying the guardian, a paper which I used to buy every day, because it’s clearly antagonistic to, rather than healthily critical of, left labour and particularly Jeremy Corbin…sorry!
For a long time the Guardian and Observer were considered as probably the only reasonably balanced papers in the UK. Yes, they were skewed towards Liberal tendencies but even so thus was not so biased as to be a problem.
What caused this to change?
A change of ownership with new owners having diametrically opposite views of the old?
Removal of Editor or Journalists that would not conform to this?
Or, worse still the lack of backbone by the once independantly minded Editorial and Journalistic staff?
Or all three?
Very glad to see you are pursuing this. I have been in correspondence with the Guardian editors and members of the Scott Trust regarding the extraordinarily partisan and biased way in which the issue of antisemitism and the Labour party has been reported, first in August and then, citing their neglect of your research, in October. Here is the first part of the letter, to which I have so far received no response.
Dear Member of the Scott Trust
!The Trust was set up in 1936 to safeguard the journalistic freedom, independence and liberal values of the Guardian in perpetuity. These values are honesty, cleanness (integrity), courage, fairness, a sense of duty to the reader and the community.” Living Our Values Report 2015
“The Guardian has never been afraid to take another look at the prevailing narrative”.
Alexandra Topping & Caelainn Barr, 6th October 2018
I am writing to you individually to express my deep concern about the erosion of standards of reporting in The Guardian, in respect of the coverage of the anti-Semitism debate in the Labour party. I hope you will continue reading, and consider the evidence I am presenting to you, as I strongly believe that what the Guardian has done is to compromise the principles and values that you so widely proclaim, in a way that has very serious consequences for factual news reporting in general, and for the impact on both the Jewish and Palestinian communities. Up until now The Guardian has held a very special and coveted position in the press field: it has been a beloved institution. This status is now under threat .
The premise of the argument – frankly no longer in debate, since the editorial stance of the paper is so clear – is that The Guardian represents one side and one set of views of the Jewish and the wider community, in both its news reporting and its opinion columns. Dissenting voices are allowed through on the letters page, but in the scale of reports, these weigh as individualised voices only and cannot compete or nullify the impression given by the original pieces. An example is provided in the attached documents (1).
In particular I wish to draw your attention to an independent report on the topic, which received no mention in the mainstream media, which substantiates the claims I made in my first letter to Katherine Viner (August 9th) and my subsequent letter copied to Alexander Graham on 18th August
This report (2) published on 27th September from Birkbeck College Media Reform Coalition found evidence of false and inaccurate statements, and of selectivity in the quoting of sources, with The Guardian and the BBC the chief offenders.
I also wish to cite, from recent weeks, the following issues:-
• Inadequate and potentially misleading coverage of the bomb hoax that disrupted a meeting held by Jewish Voice for Labour(3)
• Failure to report intimidation of Jewish activists and those attending a meeting on Palestine by a Jewish organisation dedicated to opposing BDS initiatives (Jewish Human Rights Watch)(3)
The results of this bias have been, in my view, that the Guardian has
• Privileged the opinions and beliefs of certain Jewish communities (supportive of the state of Israel –see 4) over others, thus reinforcing the trope of “good” and “bad” Jews.
• Contributed to a culture of intolerance and censorship of opposing opinions and beliefs, particularly affecting Palestinians (see 5: Lambeth Council proceedings 10th October)
• Undermined readers’ trust in the validity of the mainstream media’s reporting of the facts (6)
I should point out here that I have no problem whatsoever with the Guardian taking a particular editorial view of the direction taken by the Labour party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. I do however expect facts to be considered sacred, and this is where you have gone so badly astray. I would also hope for balanced coverage of opinions on the issue. As you can see from the documents I presented on 18th August, this is far from the case.
thank you for what you do in providing vital insights which the ordinary reader or listener may sense but cant accurately measure. This is all the more important when your analysis reveals supposed-to-be honourable and trusted media (in this case Guardian) to have joined the mob eg. by repeatedly inaccurately smearing Mr. Corbyn and Labour as anti semitic. Because of the Guardian’s pride and promotion of itself as courageous, fair and accurate, this is all the more shocking and damaging – which presumably they intend it to be. I can understand the motivation for similar sustained attacks and smears by right wing media – but what is driving the Guardian?. And why are they ignoring your letters . What the heck am I going to read (and trust) when I stop being a supporter….
Thank you for this letter. I too believe Jeremy Corbyn has unfairly been tarnished by claims which are entirely unfounded. If anything the state of Israel has shown its ability to infiltrate and skew the remarks of thoughtful people who are seeking justice for Palestine into a bias which simply did not exist. The documentary by Aljazeera called The Lobby clearly showed the overreach and impropriety. As an American I was not surprised however as the Israel lobby here has tremendous power. But I would like to raise another topic that of Nicaragua where I live. The recent political crisis was a violent coup attempt and a number of solidarity activists also wrote a letter which was signed by many professionals. We received very little in terms of response and the reporting has continued to be very one sided. During the crisis the opposition killed just as many individuals as were killed by security forces. This was never reported. There is video evidence that explicitly shows opposition members killing an Am. citizen. That was not reported. Sandinista homes, businesses, govt offices, gov’t vehicles were burned and many Sandinistas were kidnapped, and tortured and although there is also explicit video evidence of those crimes The Guardian never even suggested that the protesters were anything but peaceful. I no longer have any confidence in The Guardian and I prefer to support other sites and journalists like Max Blumenthal who came here and saw for himself what was taking place.
So glad to see I’m not the only one who has become rather bemused by the antagonistic attitude of the Guardian towards the Labour Party and specifically Jeremy Corbyn.
Now it would appear also some poorly researched article on WikiLeaks.
What is going on at Gurnad have they been infiltrated by the far right propaganda machine.?