Media analysis: Deconstructing the 'anti-semitic' smears aimed at Jeremy Corbyn.

In the article : Why we in the Jewish Labour Movement have not campaigned for Jeremy Corbyn by Mike Katz, the chair of the Jewish Labour Movement; from an edition of the Guardian published on December 8th 2019, it is claimed that the U.K's former Labour party leader failed Jewish members in terms of tolerating antisemitism: 'Who would have thought that antisemitism – and the way it has infected and toxified the?party – would become a dominant theme of an election campaign?' ( Katz, 2019).

The article is certainly not atypical with regard to the U.K press. It is not only characteristically peppered with highly charged, pejorative terms including verbs like 'infected' and 'toxified' ,but adjectives like ' rotten' and ' racist'. In relation to this, it seems that from the very moment Corbyn was elected as leader of the U.K Labour party back in September 2015, he has been the victim of a concerted smear campaign by the press and mainstream media. Indeed, it appears that a deliberate caricature has been created around Corbyn including: accusations of being a' terrorist supporter'; 'Communist': 'hard left'; 'anti - Semite.' These unfounded labels particularly the latter one, do not seem to reflect the man and his values (who has notably taken a firm stance against all forms of racism throughout his life). Perhaps it is the case, that such an egregious, multi - faceted caricature has been created in order to prevent his progressive policies from being realised/ implemented. After Corbyn's resounding defeat in the General Election of late 2019, it can be argued that these rather nefarious tactics have proved to be highly effective. Under previous leadership,the Labour party was in strong support of Israel. Corbyn took a position, and still does today, which is critical of Israeli crimes and human rights violations and it is this position that seems to have been the basis for defamatory charges.

Katz's article seems to reflect the standard depiction of Israel in the general media. In depth research by Glasgow University's Media Group ( 2002) discovered that, ' the public's lack of understanding of events in Palestine and their origins was actually compounded by television news reporting; in other words, the more people watched, the less they knew.' ( Pilger, 2006, p. 196)

Viewers were rarely told that the Palestinians were victims of an illegal military occupation; the term ' Occupied Territories' was almost never explained. Only 9 % of young people interviewed by the researchers knew that the Israelis were the occupying force and that the illegal settlers were Jewish; many believed them to be Palestinian. 'The selective use of language by broadcasters was found to be crucial in maintaining this confusion and ignorance.' ( Pilger, 2006, p.196). For example, words such as ' murder' ' atrocity' and ' savage, cold- blooded' killing were routinely employed only to describe the deaths of Israelis. Apparently, some lives are deemed , by the media at least, to be more important than others.

From the perspective of Pilger, (2006, pp. 196 - 197) there is evidence of a bias in the media that overwhelmingly favours the current Israeli regime in terms of the ongoing, seemingly never ending and unresolvable, Israeli- Palestine conflict. Indeed, Israel has been extremely effective in promoting its own narrative and distorting the truth of its massacres and repression of the Palestinian population prior to and after 1948. According to Pilger ( 2006, p.149). Ilan Pappé , the renowned Israeli historian, working forensically through archived documents and materials from Cabinet meetings, politician diaries, Israel Defence Force orders etc, uncovered much of what actually occurred during this period in preparation for his now groundbreaking book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine ( 2006) Clearly Katz's article doesn't want to deal with this truth. Perhaps, that is why he is so scathing of Corbyn who does. The tragedy is that the Palestinians have consistently been deprived of the political means to represent themselves and their situation. With this in mind, are individuals like Katz really scared of antisemitism, or are they scared of people recognising that criticism and resistance to Israel has almost nothing to do with antisemitism and everything to do with illegal occupation, human rights abuses, war crimes and legitimate grievances? Condemning Israel’s murderous crimes in Palestine, which Corbyn has done, is surely no more antisemitic than calling out Saudi Arabia’s appalling violence in Yemen as Islamophobic? Indeed, it could be argued that the ongoing row about antisemitism is now deployed as a control mechanism by much of the media the U.K, in order to devalue left leaning/ progressive political movements, which challenge the status quo.

Furthermore, although there is a degree of antisemitism in the Labour party, as there is undoubtedly everywhere else, the notion that it exclusively has a problem seems to lack any significant credibility. Rather, it can be argued, it was more the establishment’s horror at Labour’s criticism of Israel that drove this relentless anti-Corbyn campaign. According to Katz ( 2019) there is an, ' all-pervading culture of antisemitism that is present in all parts of the party; local party meetings, conferences, online forums, the disciplinary processes and its officials.' This statement seems hyperbolic when in fact only a very minute number of cases have been identified. Indeed, according to Wright ( 2019) it is reported that disciplinary cases on antisemitism among Labour party members since September 2015 relate to only 0.06% of the party’s membership. Furthermore, Katz omits ( perhaps deliberately) relevant discussion in relation to those who conflate legitimate criticism?of Israel with antisemitism. With this in mind, no attempt is made by the writer to separate/ distinguish genuine criticism of the state of Israel from antisemitism. Undoubtedly there’s a degree of antisemitism in the Labour Party, like the rest of the population. Any antisemitism is, of course, too much. Nevertheless, it is perhaps important to put things into perspective. Conflating antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel could also be said to devalue the term antisemitism with genuinely racist far right groups being put on a par with genuine progressive groups...a very risky business indeed; which in the long term is surely counterproductive.

Katz's article seems be a pertinent example of Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model ( 1988 ); which claims that the press and mainstream media “serve to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity.” ( Chomsky and Herman, 1988, p. xi). The Propaganda Model ( P.M) sees the media ( Katz's rather skewed article being a prime example) as serving a societal purpose, 'but not that of enabling the public to assert meaningful control over the political process by providing them with the information needed for the intelligent discharge of political responsibilities.' ( Herman and Chomsky, 1988, p. 298) Rather it seems to be the case that the societal purpose of the media is , ' to inculcate and defend the economic, social and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises.' ( Herman and Chomsky, 1988, p. 298). This perspective is notably at odds with the widely held, democratic assumption that the media are independent and committed to discovering and reporting the truth, and that they do not merely reflect the world as powerful groups wish it to be perceived. Nevertheless, this assumption fails to take into account the fact that institutional routines and practices allow journalists to decide what is newsworthy:

' The study of the process of news construction and the analysis of news content have demonstrated that the news is neither objective nor impartial. Broadly speaking, those with power and wealth are able to dominate the flow of information and interpretation through the media.' ( Fulcher and Scott, 1999, p. 294)

Consequently, far from being objective, the news is carefully constructed. ' The facts never speak for themselves. Space and time are limited and editorial gatekeepers select what goes into newspapers and news programmes.' ( Fulcher and Scott, 1999 p. 291)

Media leaders may claim that their news choices rest on unbiased professional and objective criteria and they have support for this contention in the intellectual community , however the powerful supported by a compliant media appear to, ' fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and they explain the basis of what amounts to propaganda campaigns.' ( Herman and Chomsky, 1988, p.2) It is within this context, that perhaps Katz's article should be deconstructed. It clearly omits a great deal of information, which is pertinent to the debate with regard to antisemitism.

Seemingly the standard perception of how the system works is at serious odds with what is actually occurring in the world : ' The people with real power are the ones, who own the society, which is a pretty narrow group.' ( Chomsky, 2002, p.18). According to Kennedy and Owen ( 2010) monopoly by a small number of media corporations is also increasingly evident. This combined ownership of different media by a few corporations provides them with a global reach that is, ' sometimes seen as threatening democracy, diversity and freedom of expression. The media are able to influence business, international agencies and national governments, which often attend to them as if they were suppliant courtiers presenting themselves for royal approval.' ( Kennedy and Owen, 2010, p. 341)

From this perspective, the establishment manages the media which are reliant on,' information provided by government, business and “experts” funded by these primary sources and agents of power.' ( Herman and Chomsky, 1988, p.2). Journalism cannot be a check on power because the very system encourages complicity. Governments, corporations, big institutions know how to play the media game and how to influence the news narrative. They feed media scoops, official accounts, interviews with the ‘experts’. They make themselves crucial to the process of journalism. So, those in power and those who report on them are very much intertwined.

Herman and Chomsky claim, that anybody who wants to challenge power, will inevitably be pushed to the margins. When journalists, whistle blowers, sources stray away from the consensus, they get ‘flak’, ' as a means of discipling the media' ( Herman and Chomsky, 1988, p.2). . When the story is inconvenient for the powers that be, invariably the flak machine will move into action by discrediting sources, trashing stories and diverting the conversation.

To manufacture consent, a convenient enemy is required, ' a control mechanism' ( Herman and Chomsky, 1988, p. 2): a target such as Communism, terrorism, immigrants etc. Consequently Katz's article could be said to successfully conjure up a common enemy in the form of Corbyn. As suggested earlier, he is presented as a bogeyman to fear, which arguably assists in terms of corralling public opinion.

Even The Guardian itself (which purports to provide independent journalism) is compromised, although not as much as other national media companies. The newspaper prides itself on advocating a wide range of progressive values, including the task of maintaining its editorial independence. However as Jones ( 2019) suggests, some members?of its board?are ex-financiers – 'binding the Guardian into Britain’s murky financial world in a way which may surprise many of its readers.' ( Jones, 2019). Jones ( 2019) also claims that true editorial independence often doesn’t exist in the U.K press. The owners can - and do -interfere with what is published in their publications, which editors and journalists are promoted or fired, as well as which political parties the paper supports. Surely, in the light of these revelations, and the way in which the media operates generally, the validity of Katz's article should be at the very least questioned.

Bibliography/ references:

1.) Chomsky, N. ( 2002) Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. 2nd edn. New York: Seven Stories Press.

.

2.) Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P. ( 2007) Global Sociology. 2nd edn. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

3.) Fulcher, J. and Scott, K. ( 1999) Sociology. Oxford: University Press.

4.) Herman, E.S. and Chomsky, N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, New York: Pantheon Books.

5.) Jones, E. (2019) Five reasons why we don’t have a free and independent press in the UK and what we can do about it.Available at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reasons-why-we-don-t-have-free-and-independent-press-in-uk-and-what-we-can-do-about ( Accessed 12 03 2020)

6.) Katz,M. (2018) Why we in the Jewish Labour Movement have not campaigned for Jeremy Corbyn. Available at://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/08/will-jeremy-corbyn-finally-start-tackling-antisemitism-after-voters-have-their-say.( Accessed:25 02 2020)

7.) Pilger, J. ( 2006 )Freedom Next Time. London. Transworld Publishers.

8.) Wright, J. ( 2019) Almost all the sources in that Panorama hatchet job have leading roles in an anti-Corbyn organisation. Available at: https://www.thecanary.co/feature/2019/08/11/almost-all-the-sources-in-that-parama- hatchet-job-have -leading-roles-in-an-anti-corbyn-organisation ( Accessed 20 03 20)