Media Bias reporting anti-semitism in Labour Party

Ken Loach !

Brian Eno is a strong supporter of Corbyn

Link to the report. Over 90 examples of bias
www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/new-mrc-research-finds-inaccuracies-and-distortions-in-media-coverage-of-antisemitism-and-the-labour-party

Thank you trisher. I kept reading this stuff and seeing it on TV and thinking, "This has to be rubbish. There may be a few idiots in the Labour Party but it can't be on this scale".

How come The Labour Party suddenly, "Owns", Antisemitism? Is it found nowhere else in our society? Other Parties for example?

Corbyn is not anti Jewish; just anti what the Israeli Government has been doing in their area since 1948. As am I.

ps This is my first time and I realise that posting on The Politics forum is dangerous and I might have to retreat to Chat for the rest of my life but I DON'T CARE!!!

Well done boat Your contribution is welcome. I was really shocked by this report and as I said I really thought 31 countries had adopted the definition. I think media bias is a threat to our democracy and needs to be challenged. It also gives fuel to the real conspiracy theorists and genuine anti-semitics.

Well said boat. I wasn't actually shocked by this report as I had always thought that the media was jumping on the bandwagon without doing proper research.

the media has alwys been biased ,its just the people who are more switched onto it now.The bias during the Scottish referendum was breathtaking .The anti SNP/Independence hype is being wound up again now and it calls us a cult amongst other less complimentary things .Historic Scotland trying to get Indy marches removed from Stirling Castle ,Edinburgh council refusing use of Holyrood park for the Indy march ...both allow OO marches and in the case of Edinburgh a huge one with KKK present .Now THATS a cult!!
In reality we are people who want control of our own country instead of England having around 80% say ,you wont hear that in the media!

Oh it’s there alright, anti-Semitism in the LP, even Corbyn admits it ( whilst being part of the problem!) but do carry on putting heads in the sand.

There's anti-semitism everywhere, lemon. The Labour Party was singled out for purely political reasons. And it's clear from the report that the media either led, or jumped on, the bandwagon without doing ant proper research.

lemon do you really approve of such widespread media bias? Regardless of what the truth may be shouldn't reporting be accurate?

Your political tribal loyalties are breathtaking!

trisher

" I was really shocked by this report and as I said I really thought 31 countries had adopted the definition".

How many do you believe have adopted the definition?

Of course the media are biased they will exaggerate any story if they can, causing extra pain for JC is to be expected.
In a waiting room last week I picked up a copy of the Daily Mail, I was shocked how extreme the articles were, no wonder the countrys in a mess, a daily diet of that scurrilous rubbish does a lot of harm.

It's 6 POGS 31 were consulted but only 6 have adopted it. It's mostly because it is seen as a legally doubtful document. It was never widely reported but an all party select committee of MPs actually advised that clauses should be added to it before the UK adopted it. Why didn't that happen? Your guess is as good as mine. Fear of media condemnation? Fear of accusations of anti-semitism? Lobbying by interested parties?

Just like us Paddyann! We too want control of our own affairs in our own country, and like you we don't want to be controlled by someone else i.e. Brussels!

I read that too Trisher.
The" art" of editing - leave out the bits you don't agree with. Even if it distorts the truth.

trisher

" It's 6 POGS 31 were consulted but only 6 have adopted it."

Which are the only 6 countries you state have adopted the IHRA definition of anti semitism?

POGS It's actually gone up to 9! Not the ones you might expect though.
The United Kingdom was the first country to adopted the definition followed by Israel, Austria, Scotland, Romania, Germany and Bulgaria. The European Parliament voted in favor of a resolution calling for member states to adopt the definition on 1 June 2017[60][61][62] without the examples.[11] As of March 16 2018, Lithuania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have also adopted the definition.[63]

So The Jewish Cronicle and The Jewish News are lying?

If they claim 31 countries have adopted it then "yes". 31 countries are members of IHRA and helped draft the definition but only 9 have adopted it.
If you are interested in the details
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism

From trisher link:-

' In 2016, the working definition and its list of examples was adopted by the IHRA, follow I by many the efforts of Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.[8] Weitzman later noted that the EUMC definition was used as there "was not enough time to invent a new one".[9] Following its adoption by IHRA, the working definition has been adopted for internal use by a number of government and political institutions; in historical order: the United Kingdom, Israel, Austria, Scotland, Romania, Germany, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Macedonia.[8] The working definition been formally adopted by eight countries[10] and six of 31 governments whose countries are members of IHRA have formally endorsed or adopted the definition.[11]
--

The countries in the IHRA are as follows:-
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
ISrael
Ialy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Romania
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom United Kingdom
United States of America United States of America

Liaison Countries
Australia
Bulgaria

Observer Countries
Albania
Bosnia and Herzegovina
El Salvador
Moldova
Monaco
Portugal
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey
Uruguay

So would it be fair to sum up that the statement " In 2016, the working definition and its list of examples was adopted by the IHRA, ' means the 31 countries who are members of the IHRA agreed to the IHRA definition of antisemitism but also fair to say that whilst the working definition has been adopted for internal use by a number of government and political institutions not all of the 31 countries in the IHRA have not ' formally adopted' the definition.

I have posted to try and put a ' context ' to the numbers involved and how they are being used .

In other words the Labour Party's stance was typical of that of most european countries.

Specific to the Labour Party it is not a government or a country but as a political party it has obviously ' formally adopted ' the IHRA definition defying Corbyn who wanted a caveat.

I believe all the main UK parties have adopted the IHRA definition.

And was what the select committe advised, but now the common perception is that the IHRA definition is accepted world wide and isn't the dodgy legal document so many have criticised.