|
The 'internationally accepted definition' you refer to is part of a misinformation narrative. Basically it is not internationally accepted...
In mid-July, an unprecedented joint statement signed by more than 40 Jewish organisations around the world (including seven in the UK) was published critiquing the IHRA definition.
although the IHRA is an international body with representatives from 31 countries, only six of those countries have, to date, formally adopted the definition themselvesIn spite of a call for local authorities to adopt the definition by the UK’s central government in early 2017, less than a third of councils have responded and several of those have chosen not to include any of the controversial examples contained within the working definitionSeveral high-profile bodies have rejected or distanced themselves from the working definition, including the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency (a successor to the body that drafted the original wording on which the definition is based) and academic institutions including the London School of Economics and the School of Oriental and African Studies.Mainstream academic and legal opinion has been overwhelmingly critical of the IHRA definition, including formal opinions produced by three senior UK barristersand one former appeals court judge What has happened though is that the media has distorted and misreported Labour especially in relation to the 'universally' and 'global' adoption of the IHRA defintion. The MRC found 27 examples of misleading and 28 examples of inaccurate reporting made in regard to the IHRA definition.
The Media Reform Coalition has conducted in-depth research on the controversy surrounding antisemitism in the Labour Party, focusing on media coverage of the crisis during the summer of 2018. Following extensive case study research, we identified myriad inaccuracies and distortions in online and television news including marked skews in sourcing, omission of essential context or right of reply, misquotation, and false assertions made either by journalists themselves or sources whose contentious claims were neither challenged nor countered. Overall, our findings were consistent with a disinformation paradigm.
https://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Labour-antisemitism-and-the-news-FINAL-CORRECTED.pdf
....we can say with some certainty that there have been prevalent errors, omissions and skews in the mainstream coverage. This was no anomaly: almost all of the problems observed in both the framing and sourcing of stories were in favour of a particular recurrent narrative: that the Labour Party has been or is being lost to extremists, racists and the ‘hard left’.
New MRC research finds inaccuracies and distortions in media coverage of antisemitism and the Labour Party - Media Reform Coalition |
|