Reader TTS

The debate on the  _ Panorama _ programme on Labour anti-Semitism has been more interesting than the programme itself.  The programme was disappointing. It was slow, poorly made, short on

evidence, often failed to make crucial points and had insurmountable difficulties in getting access to key figures in the Labour Party.  Some of these problems were of their ow n making.

Others were not. It is not the programme makers’ fault that no one in the Labour leadership was prepared to talk to them. Labour only put forward Andrew Gwynne, Shadow Secretary of State for

Communities and Local Government . Who? Exactly. A minor and inconsequential figure who could be thrown under a bus if he mis-spoke, allowing key party figures to stay protected from

serious questioning. Louise Ellman was the only leading Labour critic of the party’s anti-Semitism. Compared to Ian Austin, John Mann and Margaret Hodge, she is not the most compelling

speaker. Nor were Dave Rich, an acclaimed historian of Left-wing anti-Semitism, but not a dynamic presence, or the younger interviewees, all decent, sympathetic figures, but not compelling

speakers. As party bureaucrats they often lapsed into dull party-speak about technical issues which didn’t bring the issue of anti-Semitism to life.  No one has talked about the way the

programme was made, apart from a predictably hostile and inaccurate tweet from Owen Jones. The programme was scrupulously balanced and fair in the best BBC traditions, epitomised by the

presenter, John Ware, a current affairs veteran who has even been praised in the past by Corbyn for his impartial programmes about Northern Ireland. A member of the Shadow Cabinet was

interviewed and throughout the programme specific charges were addressed by onscreen quotes from an anonymous Labour Party spokesman/woman.  The problems were not about bias. First, there

was the low energy of the programme. The music was unengaging, the pace of the programme was slow, there was too little visual material which could have added to the argument and too many

dull talking heads. For example, when we were shown the infamous anti-Semitic mural the programme cut back to an interviewee, instead of closing in on what makes the image anti-Semitic, or

juxtaposing the image with comparable Nazi imagery. If you want to see how this programme could have looked, see some of the videos online made by Milk Media. Second, there was too little

compelling evidence: emails which were a smoking gun, surprising or revealing quotations from people in the leadership. Tom Watson’s interview on this morning’s _ Today _ programme contained

far more astonishing revelations in just a few minutes. Surprisingly little in the programme was fresh or original.  The response to the programme, by contrast, has been fascinating. On the

_ Today _ programme Tom Watson made it absolutely clear how easily and quickly the anti-Semitism issue within the Labour Party could be resolved if the political will was there. This leads

the listener to conclude that obviously it isn’t. He also made clear how much key information is withheld from him as deputy party leader: key statistics on the number of reported cases of

anti-Semitism within the party; why all these cases were transferred from party offices to the leader’s office; how the General Secretary (but not its deputy leader or even the Shadow

Cabinet) was responding to the EHRC investigation into Labour anti-Semitism. This told you more than the _ Panorama _ programme about how the party’s leadership is in charge, how

undemocratic the party has become and how safeguards put in place by the party are being routinely bypassed.  There is something else that is now so routine that we have become used to it.

No one from the Labour Party apart from Gwynne (in the programme) and Lord Levy and Tom Watson (on _ Today _ ) appeared to discuss the issue. No Corbyn, McDonnell, Thornberry or Abbott.

Certainly, no Seumas Milne or Jennie Formby, both central figures in the _ Panorama _ programme. Instead, three _ Guardian _ journalists – Dawn Foster and Rachel Shabi on _ Today _ and Owen

Jones on Five Live – rushed forward to be their voice. There was no attempt at impartiality, especially from Jones and Foster, who were quite happy to speak as passionate defenders for

Corbyn.  This is in the same week as t he _ Guardian _ published a letter by 100 “prominent members of the Jewish community”, which they were forced to remove from their website because this

group turned out to be far from “prominent”, but rather a rabble of left-wing anti-Semites and anti-Zionists, some of whom had been expelled from the Labour Party for anti-Semitism, and

some of whom were not even Jews, let alone prominent Jews.  Jones said the programme showed “no balance whatsoever” as if the on-screen responses or the interview with Gwynne had not

happened. It clearly did not occur to Foster or Jones to say that coming onto the BBC to defend Corbyn from the programme’s allegations might compromise their position as impartial

journalists. They have long since crossed that Rubicon. This is what has become of Corbyn’s kindlier, gentle politics. Smear young people who have worked passionately for the Labour Party,

smear respected BBC programme-makers, but always keep your head down and call for the hacks to do your dirty work.