The BBC transmitted an edition of Panorama on 10 July called ‘Is Labour Anti-Semitic?’, presented by John Ware. It contained allegations that senior Labour figures close to Jeremy Corbyn had interfered with the internal investigations process and that the Party was insufficiently committed to tackling anti-semitism within its own ranks. In response, the Labour Party argued that the programme “was not a fair or balanced investigation. It was a seriously inaccurate, politically one-sided polemic, which breached basic journalistic standards, invented quotes and edited emails to change their meaning. It was an overtly biased intervention by the BBC in party political controversy.”
MRC has previously identified a “disinformation paradigm” when it comes to mainstream reporting of allegations of anti-semitism within the Labour Party. We expect, as we put it in our report, “professional journalists to strive for accuracy, to establish essential contextual facts in any given story, and to actively seek out dissenting or contesting opinion including, in this case, within the minority group in question, within other affected minorities, and amongst relevant experts (both legal and academic).” We are anxious for anti-semitism – as well as any other form of racism – to be fully addressed by our major media outlets.
When it comes to broadcasting, however, we are particularly anxious that broadcasters adhere to guidelines that protect impartiality and mitigate against unbalanced reporting. We have therefore assessed the Panorama episode specifically in relation to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines to which all BBC content is accountable. We have identified a series of failings and would welcome further dialogue with the BBC about how they intend to deal with content that undermines their own editorial guidelines.
4.3.22 In achieving due impartiality, a ‘series of programmes’ may be considered as a whole.
Since 2015, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party has been embroiled in political controversy on a range of issues. Though he has attracted vociferous critics (notably from within the Parliamentary Labour Party itself), he has also retained the overwhelming support of the party’s membership and, in 2017, led the party in a general election that saw the biggest increase in Labour’s share of the popular vote since 1945. Over the course of this period, Panorama has broadcast three editions focused on the Labour Party, all of which have taken an overwhelmingly critical view of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. Two of these editions were executive-produced by the same individual, Neil Grant – a former Labour activist in Brent East who also produced an edition of Channel 4’s Dispatches in 2016 looking into alleged “infiltration” of Momentum.
Two editions of Panorama were presented by the former Sun, Sunday Times and World in Action journalist John Ware (and winner in 2005 of the Islamic Human Rights Commission’s award for Islamophobia) who has long declared his opposition to Jeremy Corbyn. Writing in the conservative journal Standpoint, he described Corbyn as “a Labour leader whose entire political career has been stimulated by disdain for the West, appeasement of extremism, and who would barely understand what fighting for the revival of British values is really all about”. His Panorama in 2015, ‘Labour’s Earthquake’, was the subject of a complaint by Jeremy Corbyn’s team that the programme was a “hatchet job”. Handing two editions to the same presenter with known (and hostile) political views on Corbyn without seeking to offer a counterposing perspective is hardly a ringing endorsement of the BBC’s commitment to due impartiality.
4.3.6 When dealing with ‘controversial subjects’, we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.
Within the programme in question, Panorama featured eight key witnesses alleging ubiquitous anti-Jewish racism within the party. The programme-makers were, however, presumably aware that hundreds of active Jewish members of the party are on record offering a very different perspective. The complete exclusion of their voices on such an active controversial subject amounts to a gross breach of the BBC’s impartiality requirements.
The two ‘expert’ witnesses, Alan Johnson and Dave Rich, whose views have been vigorously contested in public debate by other experts, were instead left unchallenged in the programme. For example, Alan Johnson’s account of antisemitism on the Left has been criticised by Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, emeritus professor at LSE, for confusing antisemitism with anti-Zionism. The programme failed to even make reference to any such opposing views or perspectives. As the founder of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, Antony Lerman, tweeted:
3.3.17 We should normally identify on-air and online sources of information and significant contributors and provide their credentials, so that our audiences can judge their status.
The BBC’s editorial guidelines also make very clear that the credentials of sources and significant contributors should be made clear to audiences, especially when dealing when covering matters of political controversy. The unnamed witnesses featured in the programme all have past or present affiliations with the Jewish Labour Movement, a group known to be on the political right of Labour and opposed to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. One of the key witnesses – Ella Rose – was also a former Israeli embassy staffer. An investigation by Al Jazeera in 2017 revealed that Israeli embassy official Shai Masot was actively working within Labour to surreptitiously undermine Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership (a complaint by Ms Rose about the Al-Jazeera documentary was rejected by Ofcom in October 2017). Nor was it mentioned that Alan Johnson, one of the programme’s two ‘expert’ witnesses, is an employee of BICOM, an organisation which, like both JLM and the Israeli state, has made no secret of its opposition to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party. None of these affiliations were mentioned by the Panorama programme. “Only 2 men portrayed as ‘experts’ on #antisemitism were interviewed”, tweeted Antony Lerman once again. “I don’t recall that we were ever informed about their institutional affiliations and credentials. Why the lack of transparency?”
3.3.16 We must not knowingly and materially mislead our audiences with our content.
The programme’s central allegation was that the party leadership, and those within the party’s governing body allied to the leadership, have been actively intervening in the complaints process so as to both cause undue delays and protect high profile individuals from sanction. In making these allegations, the programme relied on two sources of evidence: the eye-witness testimony of former staff working within Labour’s compliance unit, and selective emails leaked by those staff.
In fact, a close examination of the material evidence (leaked emails) strongly suggests that the reality of what happened was the exact inverse of what was reported. For instance, one of the key witnesses of the programme was Sam Matthews, former head of disputes in Labour’s compliance unit. It is clear from leaked emails between him and Laura Murray, a former aide of Jeremy Corbyn, that the leader’s office intervened in an effort to both expedite investigations and recommend suspension of key members under investigation. For instance, in respect of council candidate Alan Bull (who posted an article on Facebook that suggested the Holocaust was a hoax), Murray emailed Matthews in March 2018 recommending suspension:
In light of how bad his social media comments are, and in light of other complaints about comments by him received by the region, should he not be suspended pending investigation?
Where the programme did feature leaked emails they were selectively quoted out of context in a manner that was clearly and grossly misleading. For instance, the programme quoted Seamus Milne in a leaked email as stating that:
something’s going wrong, and we’re muddling up political disputes with racism… I think going forward we need to review where and how we’re drawing the line.
But the programme failed to draw attention to the fact that Milne was referring specifically to antisemitic complaints directed against Jews themselves, as a fuller quotation would have made clear:
if we’re more than very occasionally using disciplinary action against Jewish members for anti-Semitism, something’s going wrong, and we’re muddling up political disputes with racism.
This profound misrepresentation was compounded by a wholly unfounded extrapolation from an email sent by Labour’s current general secretary, Jennie Formby, in which she was quoted as stating that the “NCC [National ConstitutionCommittee] cannot be allowed to continue in the way that they are at the moment and I will also be challenging the panel for the Jackie Walker case”.
The reporter, John Ware, then offers his own version of the content of the email in a question put to the former Labour General Secretary, now Lord Iain McNicol (and one of the 64 Labour peers who took out an advertisement in the Guardian accusing Jeremy Corbyn of having “failed the test of leadership” in relation to anti-semitism):
Reporter: So if you when as General Secretary had been asked to talk to the NCC chair and say ‘You know what, we’ve got this antisemitism panel coming up, I don’t want these panelists, I want those panelists.’
But there is nothing in the email as shown to suggest that Jennie Formby was seeking to pick a particular set of members. The words ‘I don’t want these panelists, I want those panelists’, are a construction by the reporter. He persists then with a claim that Jennie Formby knew she was doing something ‘dubious’:
What Ms Formby’s email does suggest is that she knew that what was being contemplated was dubious.
His grounds for asserting this are that she has said she has deleted the email. He notes that the reason she gives is that ‘too many eyes were on her Labour address’. He cannot apparently see this as in anyway reasonable, even though he has just put her email on Panorama.
It is entirely conceivable, as the Labour Party has claimed, that Formby was expressing a concern to ensure that the procedure for dealing with complaints was efficient and effective, which is very much within her remit of responsibility. There was nothing in the email showing that she was seeking to select particular members of a panel, let alone she was attempting to interfere in the actual decision-making of the panel.
Finally, the programme relied exclusively on the eye-witness testimony in relation to a particularly disturbing allegation of antisemitism from former investigations officer Ben Westerman. In reflecting on the conclusion to an interview with party members, Westerman stated on the programme that:
The person got up to leave the room, and then turned back to me and said, ‘where are you from?’ And I said, ‘what do you mean, where am I from?’ And she said, ‘I asked you where are you from?’ And I said ‘I’m not prepared to discuss this’. And they said, ‘are you from Israel?’
In what appears to be a recording of the interview obtained by The Canary, the actual exchange between Westerman and the member in question had actually asked “what branch are you in?” and had made no reference to Israel whatsoever.
CONCLUSION
The BBC has declined to respond to criticisms beyond stating that it “stands by its journalism” and completely rejects “any accusations of bias or dishonesty”. This is, in many ways, the most serious failure: the failure to account for what appear to be, at best, serious errors of judgement on the part of the journalists and editors who produced the programme.
MRC values independent and investigative journalism as essential for democracy. When leading broadcasters fall short of their own guidelines, we should expect detailed responses and critical scrutiny. A one-sided and misleading attack on Labour reveals an underlying bias against the left that discredits its mission as a public service broadcaster.
Free speech is in fact at risk as a result of the high level of bias and evidence to prove character assassination, against Jeremy Corbyn, demonstrated by the BBC. This form of propoganda should be the subject of further investigation by the United Nations, European Court of Justice as well as an independent broadcasting authority. True journalism is under threat due to all such programs and publications viewed in disbelief because of the obvious, shameful and inaccurate information. The BBC fake news has put the entire network and industry under threat. Those responsible should be brought to justice.
Clear factual response well done
You are obviously a sun reader as most of them believe the things they write. Do they ever realise that what is written is approved by the editor, most of those have been quite contrary at the Sun.
Ah well. I suppose Buttercups can be Aeroplanes.
It is fairly obvious to most fair minded people that there has for some time been a concerted campaign via the press and sadly the BBC to destroy the credibility of a Labour Party led by a ……. dare I say it SOCIALIST.
Having been born at the end of the last World War I fear with all this sabre rattling going on there is a serious risk of history repeating itself.
What could possibly be wrong with the philosophy of For The Many Not Just The Few.
But then I’m not one of the one percent.
I hope this report and others being submitted to EHRC investigation
First we have to invetigate who the EHRC is. ?????????
I hope you have submitted this to Ofcom as part of a complaint of biased reporting and misinformation.
I have just sent a link to this report as part of escalating my original complaint about the programme up the the BBC Executive Complaints Unit – something you can do after receiving unsatisfactory responses to complaints.
An accurate analysis of an extremely bias programme.
This journalistic approach is now very prevalent, and seems to be attaining it’s objective of removing the possibility is a socialist PM.
Shocking for democracy.
It is way past time that the BBC News Dept was brought to book about its extreme bias against Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps having Producers with extreme right associations, and also ex-Tory Party employees as producers , is hardly conducive to “fair and balanced” reporting. Its time for a root and branch clearout out of the BBC News Dept.
The BBC has a duty to provide and foster free unbiased discussion of all issues whether political correct or otherwise. The core of a democracy is tolerance as described in Liberalism. Whether one personally agrees in something or not it is not the issue. They may mask swearing and offensive language but not restrict debate. The electorate needs full information to cast their vote. The BBC is not the CHURCH of PUBLIC OPINION.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
The drift to authoritarianism and political correctness over recent decades has hobbled democracy leading to frustration by some and moral superiority of others. It has biased parliament, perverted our education system and led to a distorted media preventing our view of the world.
The BBC has become unfit to be a public service broadcaster. It is appalling that serious complaints giving numerous examples of bias and dishonest reporting always receive bland statements denying the existence of any problems. It has got to the point where their lies are undermining the democracy of the UK. Serious action is needed. They are misusing public money with the deliberate aim of damaging the Labour Pzrty.
One of John Ware’s most disturbing summaries was his description of Zionism as simply something close to ‘Jewish sensitivities’. This was presumably supposed to close the book on the matter. As a white colonial ideology it was for sixteen years officially defined as a form of racism by UN resolution 3379 (this from the era of post-colonial independence movements and Black Liberation). Far from being intrinsic to Jewish religion – which goes back a couple of thousand years.- Zionism is only a few hundred years old and has its roots in the era of slavery and empire. It is a simple matter to put ‘Zionism, the Ugandan Scheme’ into a search engine to find that one original plan was.seize land from Africans in order to create a colony based upon a single white ethnic identity.
But of course if Ware had offered the historical context, he wouldn’t have been able to smear those putting the words Zionism/Racist together as some sort of bigots. .
Thank God SOMEONE is concerned with genuine fact checking, truth -an ugly word in this, the era of fake news!- and real reporting. Jeremy Corbyn one of the greatest Statesman of our time. A man of honour surrounded by an outstanding team of honest, capable, caring politicians with a real manifesto to improve the lives of the many not the few! That they should arrive on the scene at such a time of need in our société is a miracle. The pundits, Instead of honouring these courageous Men and women, sully, insult and threaten them! Philosophers of the stature of Noam Chomsky take to the stage to publicly denounce the outrageous plot to discredit Corbynism with fabricated allégations of antisemitism and the BBC leads the onslaught! Horror!
Good in depth analysis of a very one sided orogramme. But I fear there will be no backtracking, still less an apology by the BBC whose aim seems to have been the destruction of any whiff of Socialism, exaggerating any negativity, particularly with regard to antisemitism. Their arrogance and omnipotism is depressing since they still command respect from so many of their audience who perceive them as impartial truth tellers, when they are anything but!
Has the BBC responded yet?
It has been very clear since before JC became Labour leader that the BBC had moved to the Right in response to continuous misinformation by the tory Party and their stuffing the Board with their believers.
As we approach a general election, we will witness a ramping up of the smears and slander which have been directed at Jeremy Corbyn ever since he became leader of the party. We must push back against this at every turn. We must engage in dialogue with others, even if we cannot abide their views. We must appeal to the humanity of others to preserve our collective humanity – our survival depends upon this.