Media Lens

Syndicate content
News analysis and media criticism
Updated: 14 hours 31 min ago

‘How Dare You!’ The Climate Crisis And The Public Demand For Real Action

Mán, 30/09/2019 - 06:43

Reality clashed with the BBC version of false consensus in a remarkable edition of HardTalk last month. Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, was starkly honest about humanity's extreme predicament in the face of climate breakdown and refused to buckle under host Stephen Sackur's incredulous questioning. Sackur's inability to grasp that we are already in a climate emergency, and that massive changes are necessary now to avoid societal collapse, was clear for all to see. His line of questioning attempted to present Hallam to the BBC audience as a dangerous revolutionary, trying to destroy capitalism for twisted ideological reasons.

Sackur: 'You want to bring down the capitalist system as we know it, is that correct?

Hallam: 'The capitalist system is going to be brought down by itself. The capitalist system is eating itself.'

Sackur: 'Well, no, the point about your...'

Hallam (interrupting): 'Let me make this point clear, right. The capitalist system – the global system that we're in – is in the process of destroying itself, and it will destroy itself in the next ten years. The reason for that is because it's destroying the climate. The climate is what's necessary to grow food. If you can't grow food, there will be starvation and social collapse. Now, the problem is, people in elites, people in the BBC, and people in the governmental sector, cannot get their heads round what's actually happening. The fact of the matter is, if you go out and talk to ordinary people in the street, they're aware of this. And that's why hundreds of thousands of people around the world are starting to take action...'

Sackur (interrupting): 'I understand what you're [saying], your perspective on the climate is that the emergency is here, it's now and we have to respond.'

Hallam (interrupting): 'No, I don't think you have [understood].'

As Hallam pointed out in the interview, 'hard science' shows that, as things stand, billions of people will die in the next few decades as a result of climate breakdown. William Rees, professor emeritus of human ecology and ecological economics at the University of British Columbia, and the originator of the concept of 'ecological footprint', agreed. He added bluntly:

'Humanity is literally converting the ecosphere into human bodies, prodigious quantities of cultural artifacts, and vastly larger volumes of entropic waste. (That's what tropical deforestation, fisheries collapses, plummeting biodiversity, ocean pollution, climate change, etc. are all about.)'

Earlier this year, Noam Chomsky noted that:

'In a couple of generations, organized human society may not survive.'

If corporate media were structurally capable of reflecting reality, this would be constant headline news:

'Every single [newspaper] should have a shrieking headline every day saying we are heading to total catastrophe. [...] That has to be drilled into people's heads constantly. After all, there's been nothing like this in all of human history. The current generation has to make a decision as to whether organized human society will survive another couple of generations, and it has to be done quickly, there's not a lot of time. So, there's no time for dillydallying and beating around the bush. And [the US] pulling out of the Paris negotiations should be regarded as one of the worst crimes in history.'

Human extinction within one hundred years is a real possibility. A massive upsurge of public concern, placing unassailable pressure on governments to drastically change course, is urgently needed. Climate strikes, with seven million people taking part last Friday, inspired in large part by the example of 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, need to be ramped up even further, demanding real change; not fixes to a fundamentally destructive system that is falling apart, bringing humans and numerous other species with it.

As Thunberg passionately told world leaders at the UN in New York last week, in a powerful mix of emotion and reason:

'People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you! [...] How dare you pretend that this can be solved with business-as-usual and some technical solutions.'

Thunberg's speech gave the lie, yet again, to ill-founded claims that she is being manipulated or 'manufactured' as a front for neoliberalism, 'green' capitalism or 'neo-feudalism'. As Jonathan Cook wrote in a cogent demolition of cynical claims made against her, including by some on the left:

'Thunberg is not Wonder Girl. She will have to navigate through these treacherous waters as best she can, deciding who genuinely wants to help, who is trying to sabotage her cause, and which partners she can afford to ally with. She and similar movements will make mistakes. That is how social protests always work. It is also how they evolve.'

Cook added:

'Should Thunberg become captured, wittingly or not, by western elites, it is patronising in the extreme to assume that the many millions of young and old alike joining her on the climate strikes will be incapable of recognising her co-option or whether she has lost her way. Those making this argument arrogantly assume that only they can divine the true path.'

 

‘How Dare You!’ The Climate Crisis And The Public Demand For Real Action

Mán, 30/09/2019 - 06:43

Reality clashed with the BBC version of false consensus in a remarkable edition of HardTalk last month. Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, was starkly honest about humanity's extreme predicament in the face of climate breakdown and refused to buckle under host Stephen Sackur's incredulous questioning. Sackur's inability to grasp that we are already in a climate emergency, and that massive changes are necessary now to avoid societal collapse, was clear for all to see. His line of questioning attempted to present Hallam to the BBC audience as a dangerous revolutionary, trying to destroy capitalism for twisted ideological reasons.

Sackur: 'You want to bring down the capitalist system as we know it, is that correct?

Hallam: 'The capitalist system is going to be brought down by itself. The capitalist system is eating itself.'

Sackur: 'Well, no, the point about your...'

Hallam (interrupting): 'Let me make this point clear, right. The capitalist system – the global system that we're in – is in the process of destroying itself, and it will destroy itself in the next ten years. The reason for that is because it's destroying the climate. The climate is what's necessary to grow food. If you can't grow food, there will be starvation and social collapse. Now, the problem is, people in elites, people in the BBC, and people in the governmental sector, cannot get their heads round what's actually happening. The fact of the matter is, if you go out and talk to ordinary people in the street, they're aware of this. And that's why hundreds of thousands of people around the world are starting to take action...'

Sackur (interrupting): 'I understand what you're [saying], your perspective on the climate is that the emergency is here, it's now and we have to respond.'

Hallam (interrupting): 'No, I don't think you have [understood].'

As Hallam pointed out in the interview, 'hard science' shows that, as things stand, billions of people will die in the next few decades as a result of climate breakdown. William Rees, professor emeritus of human ecology and ecological economics at the University of British Columbia, and the originator of the concept of 'ecological footprint', agreed. He added bluntly:

'Humanity is literally converting the ecosphere into human bodies, prodigious quantities of cultural artifacts, and vastly larger volumes of entropic waste. (That's what tropical deforestation, fisheries collapses, plummeting biodiversity, ocean pollution, climate change, etc. are all about.)'

Earlier this year, Noam Chomsky noted that:

'In a couple of generations, organized human society may not survive.'

If corporate media were structurally capable of reflecting reality, this would be constant headline news:

'Every single [newspaper] should have a shrieking headline every day saying we are heading to total catastrophe. [...] That has to be drilled into people's heads constantly. After all, there's been nothing like this in all of human history. The current generation has to make a decision as to whether organized human society will survive another couple of generations, and it has to be done quickly, there's not a lot of time. So, there's no time for dillydallying and beating around the bush. And [the US] pulling out of the Paris negotiations should be regarded as one of the worst crimes in history.'

Human extinction within one hundred years is a real possibility. A massive upsurge of public concern, placing unassailable pressure on governments to drastically change course, is urgently needed. Climate strikes, with seven million people taking part last Friday, inspired in large part by the example of 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, need to be ramped up even further, demanding real change; not fixes to a fundamentally destructive system that is falling apart, bringing humans and numerous other species with it.

As Thunberg passionately told world leaders at the UN in New York last week, in a powerful mix of emotion and reason:

'People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you! [...] How dare you pretend that this can be solved with business-as-usual and some technical solutions.'

Thunberg's speech gave the lie, yet again, to ill-founded claims that she is being manipulated or 'manufactured' as a front for neoliberalism, 'green' capitalism or 'neo-feudalism'. As Jonathan Cook wrote in a cogent demolition of cynical claims made against her, including by some on the left:

'Thunberg is not Wonder Girl. She will have to navigate through these treacherous waters as best she can, deciding who genuinely wants to help, who is trying to sabotage her cause, and which partners she can afford to ally with. She and similar movements will make mistakes. That is how social protests always work. It is also how they evolve.'

Cook added:

'Should Thunberg become captured, wittingly or not, by western elites, it is patronising in the extreme to assume that the many millions of young and old alike joining her on the climate strikes will be incapable of recognising her co-option or whether she has lost her way. Those making this argument arrogantly assume that only they can divine the true path.'

 

Stockholm Syndrome – Julian Assange And The Limits Of Guardian Dissent

Þri, 17/09/2019 - 08:36

Nothing happened on September 2 in central London. Roger Waters, co-founder of Pink Floyd, did not initiate a protest outside the Home Office. He did not sing and play the Floyd classic 'Wish You Were Here', or say:

'Julian Assange, we are with you. Free Julian Assange!'

The renowned journalist and film-maker John Pilger did not say:

'The behaviour of the British government towards Julian Assange is a disgrace - a profanity on the very notion of human rights.

'It's no exaggeration to say that the persecution of Julian Assange is the way dictatorships treat a political prisoner.'

None of this happened for any major UK or US newspaper, which made no mention of these events at all. Readers of Prensa Latina, Havana, were more fortunate with two articles before and after the event, as were readers of Asian News International in New Delhi. Coverage was also provided by Ireland's Irish Examiner (circulation 25,419) in Cork, which published a Press Association piece that was available to the innumerable other outlets that all chose to ignore it.

Four months after he was dragged from the Ecuadorian embassy, Assange is still locked up in solitary confinement for 21 hours a day or more. He is still being denied the basic tools to prepare his case against a demand for extradition to the United States where he faces incarceration and torture. He is not allowed to call his US lawyers, is not allowed access to vital documents, or even a computer. He is confined to a single cell in the hospital wing, where he is isolated from other people. Pilger commented at the protest:

'There is one reason for this. Julian and WikiLeaks have performed an historic public service by giving millions of people facts on why and how their governments deceive them, secretly and often illegally: why they invade countries, why they spy on us.

'Julian is singled out for special treatment for one reason only: he is a truth-teller. His case is meant to send a warning to every journalist and every publisher, the kind of warning that has no place in a democracy.'

On the Sydney Criminal Lawyers website, journalist Paul Gregoire discussed Assange's declining health with his father, John Shipton, who said:

'His health is not good. He's lost about 15 kilos in weight now – five since I last saw him. And he's in solitary confinement for 22 hours a day, in the hospital ward of the gaol.'

Gregoire responded:

'As you've just explained, Julian is being held in quite extreme conditions. He's isolated from other inmates. And as well, his visits are restricted and so are his communications with his legal representation. Yet, he's only being held for breach of bail, which is a rather minor charge.'

'Yes, very minor.'

'How are the UK authorities justifying the restrictions around his imprisonment seeing he's being incarcerated on such a minor offence?'

'I don't know if they feel the necessity to justify these decisions. Their decisions are arbitrary.'

'So, they're giving no explanation as to his treatment.'

'No.'

It does seem extraordinary, in fact medieval, for such brutal treatment to be meted out to someone for merely breaching bail, with almost zero 'mainstream' political or media protest. This is only one reason, of course, why the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, penned an article titled, 'Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange'. Melzer commented:

'What may look like mere mudslinging in public debate, quickly becomes "mobbing" when used against the defenseless, and even "persecution" once the State is involved. Now just add purposefulness and severe suffering, and what you get is full-fledged psychological torture.'

Investigative journalist Peter Oborne courageously challenged conventional wisdom on Assange this month in a British Journalism Review piece titled, 'He is a hero, not a villain'. Oborne described how, in July, the Mail on Sunday had published a front-page story revealing the contents of diplomatic telegrams – 'DipTels' – sent to London by the British ambassador to the US. The memos described President Trump's administration as 'inept' and Trump himself as 'uniquely dysfunctional'.

'All hell broke loose. The May government announced an official leak inquiry. The Metropolitan Police launched a criminal investigation. The intelligence services got involved.

'The Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner Neil Basu warned the press not to publish any further documents as this could "constitute a criminal offence". The Mail on Sunday paid no attention. It published further leaks and other papers came to its support. So did politicians. Tory leadership candidates Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt were among those who criticised Basu's comments.

'Hunt, who was then foreign secretary, said: "I defend to the hilt the right of the press to publish those leaks if they receive them and judge them to be in the public interest...'

'Meanwhile, that leaker-in-chief Julian Assange continued to languish in Belmarsh prison, where he is serving 50 weeks for skipping bail...

'Julian Assange is a controversial figure, to be sure. Many of those who have dealt with him have found him difficult. But I find myself wondering what exactly the difference is between his alleged crime of publishing leaked US diplomatic cables and the Mail on Sunday's offence of publishing leaked Foreign Office cables.

'Why is Assange treated by the bulk of the British media as a pariah? And the Mail on Sunday as a doughty defender of press freedom? After all, Julian Assange is responsible for breaking more stories than all the rest of us put together.'

Oborne commented:

'This looks to me like a monstrous case of double standards, even by the ocean-going standards of Britain's media/political class.'

Stockholm Syndrome – Julian Assange And The Limits Of Guardian Dissent

Þri, 17/09/2019 - 08:36

Nothing happened on September 2 in central London. Roger Waters, co-founder of Pink Floyd, did not initiate a protest outside the Home Office. He did not sing and play the Floyd classic 'Wish You Were Here', or say:

'Julian Assange, we are with you. Free Julian Assange!'

The renowned journalist and film-maker John Pilger did not say:

'The behaviour of the British government towards Julian Assange is a disgrace - a profanity on the very notion of human rights.

'It's no exaggeration to say that the persecution of Julian Assange is the way dictatorships treat a political prisoner.'

None of this happened for any major UK or US newspaper, which made no mention of these events at all. Readers of Prensa Latina, Havana, were more fortunate with two articles before and after the event, as were readers of Asian News International in New Delhi. Coverage was also provided by Ireland's Irish Examiner (circulation 25,419) in Cork, which published a Press Association piece that was available to the innumerable other outlets that all chose to ignore it.

Four months after he was dragged from the Ecuadorian embassy, Assange is still locked up in solitary confinement for 21 hours a day or more. He is still being denied the basic tools to prepare his case against a demand for extradition to the United States where he faces incarceration and torture. He is not allowed to call his US lawyers, is not allowed access to vital documents, or even a computer. He is confined to a single cell in the hospital wing, where he is isolated from other people. Pilger commented at the protest:

'There is one reason for this. Julian and WikiLeaks have performed an historic public service by giving millions of people facts on why and how their governments deceive them, secretly and often illegally: why they invade countries, why they spy on us.

'Julian is singled out for special treatment for one reason only: he is a truth-teller. His case is meant to send a warning to every journalist and every publisher, the kind of warning that has no place in a democracy.'

On the Sydney Criminal Lawyers website, journalist Paul Gregoire discussed Assange's declining health with his father, John Shipton, who said:

'His health is not good. He's lost about 15 kilos in weight now – five since I last saw him. And he's in solitary confinement for 22 hours a day, in the hospital ward of the gaol.'

Gregoire responded:

'As you've just explained, Julian is being held in quite extreme conditions. He's isolated from other inmates. And as well, his visits are restricted and so are his communications with his legal representation. Yet, he's only being held for breach of bail, which is a rather minor charge.'

'Yes, very minor.'

'How are the UK authorities justifying the restrictions around his imprisonment seeing he's being incarcerated on such a minor offence?'

'I don't know if they feel the necessity to justify these decisions. Their decisions are arbitrary.'

'So, they're giving no explanation as to his treatment.'

'No.'

It does seem extraordinary, in fact medieval, for such brutal treatment to be meted out to someone for merely breaching bail, with almost zero 'mainstream' political or media protest. This is only one reason, of course, why the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, penned an article titled, 'Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange'. Melzer commented:

'What may look like mere mudslinging in public debate, quickly becomes "mobbing" when used against the defenseless, and even "persecution" once the State is involved. Now just add purposefulness and severe suffering, and what you get is full-fledged psychological torture.'

Investigative journalist Peter Oborne courageously challenged conventional wisdom on Assange this month in a British Journalism Review piece titled, 'He is a hero, not a villain'. Oborne described how, in July, the Mail on Sunday had published a front-page story revealing the contents of diplomatic telegrams – 'DipTels' – sent to London by the British ambassador to the US. The memos described President Trump's administration as 'inept' and Trump himself as 'uniquely dysfunctional'.

'All hell broke loose. The May government announced an official leak inquiry. The Metropolitan Police launched a criminal investigation. The intelligence services got involved.

'The Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner Neil Basu warned the press not to publish any further documents as this could "constitute a criminal offence". The Mail on Sunday paid no attention. It published further leaks and other papers came to its support. So did politicians. Tory leadership candidates Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt were among those who criticised Basu's comments.

'Hunt, who was then foreign secretary, said: "I defend to the hilt the right of the press to publish those leaks if they receive them and judge them to be in the public interest...'

'Meanwhile, that leaker-in-chief Julian Assange continued to languish in Belmarsh prison, where he is serving 50 weeks for skipping bail...

'Julian Assange is a controversial figure, to be sure. Many of those who have dealt with him have found him difficult. But I find myself wondering what exactly the difference is between his alleged crime of publishing leaked US diplomatic cables and the Mail on Sunday's offence of publishing leaked Foreign Office cables.

'Why is Assange treated by the bulk of the British media as a pariah? And the Mail on Sunday as a doughty defender of press freedom? After all, Julian Assange is responsible for breaking more stories than all the rest of us put together.'

Oborne commented:

'This looks to me like a monstrous case of double standards, even by the ocean-going standards of Britain's media/political class.'

The Campaign To Stop Corbyn – Smears, Racism And Censorship

Mán, 22/07/2019 - 06:28

The greatest fear of those holding the most power and wealth is that they will lose their exalted position in the world. They will resist any changes to the grossly unequal and unjust class structure that causes grievous damage to so many people; and to the planet itself. Even the threat of real change must be crushed. This, in a nutshell, underpins the astonishing and relentless campaign to stop Jeremy Corbyn, a moderate leftist, from ever becoming Prime Minister.

On July 10, BBC broadcast an episode of Panorama that purported to be an impartial investigation into the loaded question, 'Is Labour Anti-Semitic?'. It quickly became clear that the programme makers were not interested in a serious appraisal of the evidence and that the question was merely rhetorical. The thrust of the programme was that Labour is anti-semitic. The Labour Party response was scathing:

'The Panorama 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.

'An honest investigation into antisemitism in Labour and wider society is in the public interest. The Panorama team instead pre-determined an answer to the question posed by the programme's title.'

The programme was presented by BBC journalist John Ware who had previously made clear his antagonism towards Corbyn's politics. As journalist Jonathan Cook wrote:

'that Panorama made no attempt at even-handedness or fairness in its programme on Labour should have come as no surprise. The man in charge of the investigation was John Ware, a former Sun journalist. He cannot be considered dispassionate either about Corbyn or the prospects of Labour defeating the Conservative Party at a general election, which may be just around the corner.'

Cook continued:

'Two years ago, Ware wrote a lengthy article for a right-wing magazine warning of the danger of Corbyn reaching power. He was a politician, wrote Ware, "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".

'Shortly after Corbyn's leadership election victory in 2015, Ware headed a Panorama documentary that sought to malign the new leader. Ware is also a strident supporter of Israel and of its state ideology, Zionism. In a 2005 edition of Panorama he suggested that Muslims in Britain who spoke out about Israel's crimes against Palestinians were "extremists".

'In an article in the Jewish Chronicle last year Ware concluded that anti-Zionism had "morphed into antisemitism – itself a Corbyn legacy".'

The Panorama programme was immediately followed by BBC News at Ten which gave it extensive coverage, pumping up the propaganda value of the fake 'investigation'. BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg intoned gravely:

'Many party members have left, and if Labour can't get a grip of racism in its own ranks, what might they lose next?'

Consider her choice of words: 'Many party members have left' and 'Labour can't get a grip of racism in its own ranks'. The public is supposed to swallow the BBC's implication of endemic Labour anti-semitism as impartial, objective reporting.

Kuenssberg continued:

'This is a problem that has dogged the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, not for a few weeks, not just for a few months, but for several years now.'

Many commentators, including Media Lens, have long argued that the issue of anti-semitism has been exploited to inflict as much damage on Corbyn as possible. But that rational perspective is systematically excluded from BBC News 'journalism'. Instead, as ever, the BBC political editor continued to hammer home the requisite propaganda bullet points:

'Corbyn has been unable, it seems, to crack down on it [anti-semitism] in the way he has promised to do, again and again.'

In the BBC version of 'neutral' news reporting, there is no hint that Corbyn's opponents - not least the corporate media, including the BBC - wish to destroy him and what he stands for. But then, from the very beginning, the BBC has been on the side of the establishment and the government of the day. As BBC founder John Reith confided in his diary during the 1926 General Strike:

'They know they can trust us not to be really impartial.'

('The Reith Diaries', edited by Charles Stewart, Collins, 1975; entry for 11 May, 1926)

The experienced journalist Peter Oborne said via Twitter:

'I proposed to the BBC a documentary on Tory Islamophobia three years ago. Zero interest.'

It is possible that in over-reaching themselves, and presenting such a skewed perspective, Panorama and the BBC had inadvertently highlighted the manufactured nature of the 'anti-semitism crisis'. As Asa Winstanley observed:

'all the program proved was just how dishonest the British establishment and the Israel lobby have been in manufacturing this "Labour anti-Semitism crisis" for the past four years.'

In a piece for The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah gave crucial background context, observing that the Israel lobby is working hard to split the left:

'Influential Israel lobby groups are offering "rules" for how Jewish communal organizations can divide the left and break up emerging intersectional coalitions.

'They also advocate for "delegitimizing" Jews deemed too supportive of Palestinian rights.

'Israel and its lobby see the strengthening solidarity between Palestinians and other oppressed groups, especially Black people in the United States, as a major threat and they are determined to fight back.

'Indeed, last year, Al Jazeera's leaked undercover documentary The Lobby–USA revealed how the Israeli government and its lobby worked to disrupt the Black Lives Matter movement in retaliation for Black solidarity with Palestine.'

A central strategy of this pro-Israel campaign is to repeatedly state a false equivalence between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. Abunimah explained:

'Zionism, Israel's state ideology, is racist because it grants superior rights to Jews enshrined in dozens of Israeli laws and holds that Palestinians expelled and exiled from their homeland should not be allowed to return to it solely and exclusively because they are not Jews.

'Anti-Zionism, therefore, is not prejudice against Jews as Israel and its lobby groups claim.

'Anti-Zionism, based in universal human rights principles, is anti-racism.'

A new report by Israel's Reut Institute and the US-based Jewish Council for Public Affairs warned ominously that '"Corbynization" is spreading through segments of the political left' and that 'UK-based anti-Israel groups have been inspiring liberal and progressive elite circles worldwide.'

This, says Abunimah, 'underlines why Israel and its lobby view discrediting and removing Corbyn as a paramount priority.'

The Campaign To Stop Corbyn – Smears, Racism And Censorship

Mán, 22/07/2019 - 06:28

The greatest fear of those holding the most power and wealth is that they will lose their exalted position in the world. They will resist any changes to the grossly unequal and unjust class structure that causes grievous damage to so many people; and to the planet itself. Even the threat of real change must be crushed. This, in a nutshell, underpins the astonishing and relentless campaign to stop Jeremy Corbyn, a moderate leftist, from ever becoming Prime Minister.

On July 10, BBC broadcast an episode of Panorama that purported to be an impartial investigation into the loaded question, 'Is Labour Anti-Semitic?'. It quickly became clear that the programme makers were not interested in a serious appraisal of the evidence and that the question was merely rhetorical. The thrust of the programme was that Labour is anti-semitic. The Labour Party response was scathing:

'The Panorama 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.

'An honest investigation into antisemitism in Labour and wider society is in the public interest. The Panorama team instead pre-determined an answer to the question posed by the programme's title.'

The programme was presented by BBC journalist John Ware who had previously made clear his antagonism towards Corbyn's politics. As journalist Jonathan Cook wrote:

'that Panorama made no attempt at even-handedness or fairness in its programme on Labour should have come as no surprise. The man in charge of the investigation was John Ware, a former Sun journalist. He cannot be considered dispassionate either about Corbyn or the prospects of Labour defeating the Conservative Party at a general election, which may be just around the corner.'

Cook continued:

'Two years ago, Ware wrote a lengthy article for a right-wing magazine warning of the danger of Corbyn reaching power. He was a politician, wrote Ware, "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".

'Shortly after Corbyn's leadership election victory in 2015, Ware headed a Panorama documentary that sought to malign the new leader. Ware is also a strident supporter of Israel and of its state ideology, Zionism. In a 2005 edition of Panorama he suggested that Muslims in Britain who spoke out about Israel's crimes against Palestinians were "extremists".

'In an article in the Jewish Chronicle last year Ware concluded that anti-Zionism had "morphed into antisemitism – itself a Corbyn legacy".'

The Panorama programme was immediately followed by BBC News at Ten which gave it extensive coverage, pumping up the propaganda value of the fake 'investigation'. BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg intoned gravely:

'Many party members have left, and if Labour can't get a grip of racism in its own ranks, what might they lose next?'

Consider her choice of words: 'Many party members have left' and 'Labour can't get a grip of racism in its own ranks'. The public is supposed to swallow the BBC's implication of endemic Labour anti-semitism as impartial, objective reporting.

Kuenssberg continued:

'This is a problem that has dogged the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, not for a few weeks, not just for a few months, but for several years now.'

Many commentators, including Media Lens, have long argued that the issue of anti-semitism has been exploited to inflict as much damage on Corbyn as possible. But that rational perspective is systematically excluded from BBC News 'journalism'. Instead, as ever, the BBC political editor continued to hammer home the requisite propaganda bullet points:

'Corbyn has been unable, it seems, to crack down on it [anti-semitism] in the way he has promised to do, again and again.'

In the BBC version of 'neutral' news reporting, there is no hint that Corbyn's opponents - not least the corporate media, including the BBC - wish to destroy him and what he stands for. But then, from the very beginning, the BBC has been on the side of the establishment and the government of the day. As BBC founder John Reith confided in his diary during the 1926 General Strike:

'They know they can trust us not to be really impartial.'

('The Reith Diaries', edited by Charles Stewart, Collins, 1975; entry for 11 May, 1926)

The experienced journalist Peter Oborne said via Twitter:

'I proposed to the BBC a documentary on Tory Islamophobia three years ago. Zero interest.'

It is possible that in over-reaching themselves, and presenting such a skewed perspective, Panorama and the BBC had inadvertently highlighted the manufactured nature of the 'anti-semitism crisis'. As Asa Winstanley observed:

'all the program proved was just how dishonest the British establishment and the Israel lobby have been in manufacturing this "Labour anti-Semitism crisis" for the past four years.'

In a piece for The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah gave crucial background context, observing that the Israel lobby is working hard to split the left:

'Influential Israel lobby groups are offering "rules" for how Jewish communal organizations can divide the left and break up emerging intersectional coalitions.

'They also advocate for "delegitimizing" Jews deemed too supportive of Palestinian rights.

'Israel and its lobby see the strengthening solidarity between Palestinians and other oppressed groups, especially Black people in the United States, as a major threat and they are determined to fight back.

'Indeed, last year, Al Jazeera's leaked undercover documentary The Lobby–USA revealed how the Israeli government and its lobby worked to disrupt the Black Lives Matter movement in retaliation for Black solidarity with Palestine.'

A central strategy of this pro-Israel campaign is to repeatedly state a false equivalence between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. Abunimah explained:

'Zionism, Israel's state ideology, is racist because it grants superior rights to Jews enshrined in dozens of Israeli laws and holds that Palestinians expelled and exiled from their homeland should not be allowed to return to it solely and exclusively because they are not Jews.

'Anti-Zionism, therefore, is not prejudice against Jews as Israel and its lobby groups claim.

'Anti-Zionism, based in universal human rights principles, is anti-racism.'

A new report by Israel's Reut Institute and the US-based Jewish Council for Public Affairs warned ominously that '"Corbynization" is spreading through segments of the political left' and that 'UK-based anti-Israel groups have been inspiring liberal and progressive elite circles worldwide.'

This, says Abunimah, 'underlines why Israel and its lobby view discrediting and removing Corbyn as a paramount priority.'

Suspending Chris Williamson - The Fury And The Fakery

Fim, 04/07/2019 - 11:23

On June 26, the Labour Party lifted the suspension of pro-Corbyn MP Chris Williamson, triggering a maximum effort propaganda blitz designed to reverse the decision.

Williamson had been suspended on February 27, after footage emerged of him responding to claims of institutionalised anti-semitism in the Labour Party. This is what Williamson said:

'The party that's done more to stand up to racism is now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party. I've got to say I think our party's response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion... we've backed off far too much, we've given too much ground, we've been too apologetic.'

He added:

'We've done more to actually address the scourge of anti-semitism than any other political party, any other political party. And yet we are being traduced.'

Anyone watching the film can see that Williamson was passionate about combating the 'scourge of anti-semitism', was emphasising his pride in the Labour Party's historical commitment to that cause and was frustrated by the failure of the Labour leadership to adequately defend that commitment. The blogger Jewish Dissident captured the reality exactly:

'Whether one agrees with Chris or not, it's hard to think of a single comparable instance where an innocuous comment of this sort has led to such a risible media circus, or to such a sustained campaign of personal and political vilification.

'The treatment of good old Boris, our next Prime Minister, makes for an interesting contrast. The man who is apparently destined to lead our country has a clear track record of actual, as opposed to bogus, racism and bigotry. He's the man who has talked about "watermelon smiles" and "piccaninnies", described women as "hot totty", professed his inability to distinguish between burka-clad women and letter boxes, and derided gay men as "bumboys".'

Jewish Dissident noted further:

'Every single one of Johnson's vile, bigoted comments has been allowed to pass by the media and the Westminster establishment. Because, after all, it's just "good old Boris" talking.'

And this really is the point - occasional comments and opinion pieces may express revulsion, but propaganda blitzes are not launched at Johnson, with half of his own party and all the opposition party, and all corporate media, shrieking for his head.

Johnson commented on Williamson that it was 'shameful that Labour have reinstated this key Corbyn ally back into their party after his appalling remarks. We must never allow these apologists for anti-Semitism anywhere near government'.

This warning appeared in an ITV website article that also contained damning criticism from Labour MP Margaret Hodge, Labour MP Stella Creasy, Amanda Bowman, vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Gideon Falter, chief executive of Campaign Against Antisemitism, and anti-racism campaign group Hope Not Hate, with three pictured tweets highlighting and repeating their accusations. These six sources were not balanced by a single comment of any kind defending Williamson. This unarguably constitutes a form of extreme propaganda, rather than balanced journalism.

ITV could have turned for a comment to Jewish Voice for Labour, which said it welcomed the lifting of Williamson's suspension, and criticised the media focus on the MP's opponents:

'There is huge support for Chris within and outside the party and this had not been reflected in the media coverage.'

As we have previously noted, a key feature of a propaganda blitz is that accusations are accompanied by expressions of incandescent moral outrage:

'The rationale is clear enough: insanity aside, in ordinary life outrage of this kind is usually a sign that someone has good reason to be angry. People generally do not get very angry in the presence of significant doubt. So, the message to the public is that there is no doubt.' (David Edwards and David Cromwell, 'Propaganda Blitz', Pluto Press, 2018, p.6)

Thus, Labour MP Margaret Hodge, a key Corbyn opponent, said of the decision to lift Williamson's suspension:

'It is appalling, outrageous and unacceptable that he should be allowed back into the party. It's a cynical move... and we will have Jew haters sitting as Labour MPs under Jeremy Corbyn.'

Thus, also, columnist Rod Liddle, who wrote in the Sunday Times under this title:

'Unless you're anti‑semitic, walk away from Labour — it stinks from top to bottom'

As we will show below, this is a completely fake claim. In true McCarthyite tradition, Liddle observed that Williamson, who is the democratically elected MP for Derby North, 'looks, facially - to me at least - like a man called Reinhardt who has just been discovered hiding out in Argentina and might, if you shouted "Heil Hitler", have great difficulty controlling the actions of his right arm'.

Liddle expressed his revulsion at 'the fact that the Labour Party nowadays finds Jew-hating an agreeable and potentially vote-winning sideline and is riddled with it, from top to bottom', concluding:

'That Williamson is anti-semitic I have no doubt. But compared with Jeremy Corbyn he is an exemplar of anti-racist progressivism.'

At the other end of the supposed media 'spectrum', in a piece titled, 'Of all the hills to die on, why on earth has Labour chosen Chris Williamson?', Guardian columnist Marina Hyde described Williamson as an 'annoying prick in a black polo-neck' who looks like a 'boil-washed Terence Stamp'. Hyde lamented 'Williamson's long history of highly problematic statements'. Significantly, she did not cite from, or link to, any such long, ugly history. Apparently parroting Jon Lansman, Chair of Labour's Momentum group, Hyde commented:

'It's notable that the returning Williamson didn't even bother with a non-apology apology.'

It's unlikely that Hyde cared, or even knew, that Williamson had published a long, gracious message in February that began:

'A personal message and sincere apology from me regarding my recent remarks on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.'

He added:

'On a personal level, I have been an anti-racist all my life. As a former member of the Anti-Nazi League, I participated in direct action to confront foul anti-Semites in the streets... It pains me greatly, therefore, that anyone should believe that it is my intention to minimise the cancerous and pernicious nature of anti-Semitism.'

These are not the words of a 'Jew hater'. In addition to this apology, after he was briefly reinstated to the Labour Party, Williamson reaffirmed his commitment to fighting 'racism in all its forms', saying he would like to 'work in tandem' with the Board of Deputies of British Jews as 'allies'.

Our July 4 ProQuest national newspaper search of articles appearing in 2019 found:

'Chris Williamson' and 'anti-semitism' = 608 hits

'Chris Williamson' and 'anti-nazi' = 5 hits

Examining the results more closely, it turns out that the fact that Williamson literally fought on the streets against anti-semites as part of the Anti-Nazi League has been mentioned twice in UK national newspapers this year.

More than 150 Labour MPs and peers – the infamously pro-war, Blairite section of the party – added to the propaganda blitz by protesting the decision to readmit Williamson in a statement led by the bitterly anti-Corbyn deputy leader Tom Watson.

Also in perfect accordance with our propaganda blitz theory, the propaganda coup de grace was supplied by leftists Owen Jones of the Guardian and Ash Sarkar of the ostensibly 'alternative' Novara Media. Williamson's suspension was lifted on June 26. That day, Sarkar tweeted:

'This outcome is indefensible.'

On June 27, having presumably missed Williamson's earlier apology, Jones wrote:

'Chris Williamson could always show he's learned why he's caused distress and then acted on that: I'm yet to see evidence of it.'

One day later, Williamson was suspended again. Jones recently claimed that Williamson 'causes relentless immense damage to the left'. 

Asked if he would 'stand with Chris Williamson', leftist singer Billy Bragg responded this week:

'Can't do that Daniel. Labour needs to resolve the issue of anti-semitism within the party. Right now Williamson is part of the problem, not the solution.'

We asked Bragg what specifically had led him to this conclusion; he did not reply.

Suspending Chris Williamson - The Fury And The Fakery

Fim, 04/07/2019 - 11:23

On June 26, the Labour Party lifted the suspension of pro-Corbyn MP Chris Williamson, triggering a maximum effort propaganda blitz designed to reverse the decision.

Williamson had been suspended on February 27, after footage emerged of him responding to claims of institutionalised anti-semitism in the Labour Party. This is what Williamson said:

'The party that's done more to stand up to racism is now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party. I've got to say I think our party's response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion... we've backed off far too much, we've given too much ground, we've been too apologetic.'

He added:

'We've done more to actually address the scourge of anti-semitism than any other political party, any other political party. And yet we are being traduced.'

Anyone watching the film can see that Williamson was passionate about combating the 'scourge of anti-semitism', was emphasising his pride in the Labour Party's historical commitment to that cause and was frustrated by the failure of the Labour leadership to adequately defend that commitment. The blogger Jewish Dissident captured the reality exactly:

'Whether one agrees with Chris or not, it's hard to think of a single comparable instance where an innocuous comment of this sort has led to such a risible media circus, or to such a sustained campaign of personal and political vilification.

'The treatment of good old Boris, our next Prime Minister, makes for an interesting contrast. The man who is apparently destined to lead our country has a clear track record of actual, as opposed to bogus, racism and bigotry. He's the man who has talked about "watermelon smiles" and "piccaninnies", described women as "hot totty", professed his inability to distinguish between burka-clad women and letter boxes, and derided gay men as "bumboys".'

Jewish Dissident noted further:

'Every single one of Johnson's vile, bigoted comments has been allowed to pass by the media and the Westminster establishment. Because, after all, it's just "good old Boris" talking.'

And this really is the point - occasional comments and opinion pieces may express revulsion, but propaganda blitzes are not launched at Johnson, with half of his own party and all the opposition party, and all corporate media, shrieking for his head.

Johnson commented on Williamson that it was 'shameful that Labour have reinstated this key Corbyn ally back into their party after his appalling remarks. We must never allow these apologists for anti-Semitism anywhere near government'.

This warning appeared in an ITV website article that also contained damning criticism from Labour MP Margaret Hodge, Labour MP Stella Creasy, Amanda Bowman, vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Gideon Falter, chief executive of Campaign Against Antisemitism, and anti-racism campaign group Hope Not Hate, with three pictured tweets highlighting and repeating their accusations. These six sources were not balanced by a single comment of any kind defending Williamson. This unarguably constitutes a form of extreme propaganda, rather than balanced journalism.

ITV could have turned for a comment to Jewish Voice for Labour, which said it welcomed the lifting of Williamson's suspension, and criticised the media focus on the MP's opponents:

'There is huge support for Chris within and outside the party and this had not been reflected in the media coverage.'

As we have previously noted, a key feature of a propaganda blitz is that accusations are accompanied by expressions of incandescent moral outrage:

'The rationale is clear enough: insanity aside, in ordinary life outrage of this kind is usually a sign that someone has good reason to be angry. People generally do not get very angry in the presence of significant doubt. So, the message to the public is that there is no doubt.' (David Edwards and David Cromwell, 'Propaganda Blitz', Pluto Press, 2018, p.6)

Thus, Labour MP Margaret Hodge, a key Corbyn opponent, said of the decision to lift Williamson's suspension:

'It is appalling, outrageous and unacceptable that he should be allowed back into the party. It's a cynical move... and we will have Jew haters sitting as Labour MPs under Jeremy Corbyn.'

Thus, also, columnist Rod Liddle, who wrote in the Sunday Times under this title:

'Unless you're anti‑semitic, walk away from Labour — it stinks from top to bottom'

As we will show below, this is a completely fake claim. In true McCarthyite tradition, Liddle observed that Williamson, who is the democratically elected MP for Derby North, 'looks, facially - to me at least - like a man called Reinhardt who has just been discovered hiding out in Argentina and might, if you shouted "Heil Hitler", have great difficulty controlling the actions of his right arm'.

Liddle expressed his revulsion at 'the fact that the Labour Party nowadays finds Jew-hating an agreeable and potentially vote-winning sideline and is riddled with it, from top to bottom', concluding:

'That Williamson is anti-semitic I have no doubt. But compared with Jeremy Corbyn he is an exemplar of anti-racist progressivism.'

At the other end of the supposed media 'spectrum', in a piece titled, 'Of all the hills to die on, why on earth has Labour chosen Chris Williamson?', Guardian columnist Marina Hyde described Williamson as an 'annoying prick in a black polo-neck' who looks like a 'boil-washed Terence Stamp'. Hyde lamented 'Williamson's long history of highly problematic statements'. Significantly, she did not cite from, or link to, any such long, ugly history. Apparently parroting Jon Lansman, Chair of Labour's Momentum group, Hyde commented:

'It's notable that the returning Williamson didn't even bother with a non-apology apology.'

It's unlikely that Hyde cared, or even knew, that Williamson had published a long, gracious message in February that began:

'A personal message and sincere apology from me regarding my recent remarks on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.'

He added:

'On a personal level, I have been an anti-racist all my life. As a former member of the Anti-Nazi League, I participated in direct action to confront foul anti-Semites in the streets... It pains me greatly, therefore, that anyone should believe that it is my intention to minimise the cancerous and pernicious nature of anti-Semitism.'

These are not the words of a 'Jew hater'. In addition to this apology, after he was briefly reinstated to the Labour Party, Williamson reaffirmed his commitment to fighting 'racism in all its forms', saying he would like to 'work in tandem' with the Board of Deputies of British Jews as 'allies'.

Our July 4 ProQuest national newspaper search of articles appearing in 2019 found:

'Chris Williamson' and 'anti-semitism' = 608 hits

'Chris Williamson' and 'anti-nazi' = 5 hits

Examining the results more closely, it turns out that the fact that Williamson literally fought on the streets against anti-semites as part of the Anti-Nazi League has been mentioned twice in UK national newspapers this year.

More than 150 Labour MPs and peers – the infamously pro-war, Blairite section of the party – added to the propaganda blitz by protesting the decision to readmit Williamson in a statement led by the bitterly anti-Corbyn deputy leader Tom Watson.

Also in perfect accordance with our propaganda blitz theory, the propaganda coup de grace was supplied by leftists Owen Jones of the Guardian and Ash Sarkar of the ostensibly 'alternative' Novara Media. Williamson's suspension was lifted on June 26. That day, Sarkar tweeted:

'This outcome is indefensible.'

On June 27, having presumably missed Williamson's earlier apology, Jones wrote:

'Chris Williamson could always show he's learned why he's caused distress and then acted on that: I'm yet to see evidence of it.'

One day later, Williamson was suspended again. Jones recently claimed that Williamson 'causes relentless immense damage to the left'. 

Asked if he would 'stand with Chris Williamson', leftist singer Billy Bragg responded this week:

'Can't do that Daniel. Labour needs to resolve the issue of anti-semitism within the party. Right now Williamson is part of the problem, not the solution.'

We asked Bragg what specifically had led him to this conclusion; he did not reply.