86 queries about accuracy in the Panorama programme

The most elaborate challenge to the Panorama programme we have yet seen. You don’t have to agree with each point to see there is a lot to answer.

To every complaint there is a standard response: “The BBC stands by its journalism and we completely reject any accusations of bias or dishonesty. ”


Source: Twitter

‘This farrago of half-truths, contested allegations and unsubstantiated office tittle-tattle from disgruntled former employees, solemnly presented as fact, is a disgrace to journalism.’

‘Nothing’ in point 86 should read ‘notions’.
BBC tell me they can only accept submissions of this length through the post (unless I’m prepared to submit it in 5,000 character ‘bites’ on their annoying webform). So a quick check and proofread tomorrow, and off it goes.

I’ve corrected a few errors. I misattributed the behaviour of Luciana Berger to Louise Ellman, and there are a few other slips and typos. Sent now, so too late for any further corrections.

Comments (16)

  • S H says:


  • Janet Crosley says:

    And how ! Thankyou.

  • John says:

    This article provides proof that at least two “participants” on the Panorama smear programme knew each other very well, even though they were not shown as connected: https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/ujia-1650000.

  • Alasdair MacVarish says:

    BBC disgraced itself with Panorama programme. All 7 unidentified complainants of ant-Semitism led by Ella Rose ( ex. employee at Israeli embassy) were office holders in Jewish Labour Movement which was moribund before Corbyn became leader.

  • martin kilkie says:

    Great piece of work but… My only comment is that in most cases you label the programme’s behaviour too charitably as “inaccurate” when is much worse. In different points “misrepresentation”, “exaggreation” or “”biased” or just “wrong” should be used. It is inaccurate to say that the circumference of a circle is 3 times its radius but it is wrong to say the circumference is twice its radius. You let them off the hook if you just say inaccurate.

  • Fran Heron says:

    I want to hug the lot of you and then hug you all again.
    Your forensic approach to each and every allegation is the best way to delegitimise credibility of accusers. They are over-egging the pudding for political expediency. We see you.

  • John C says:

    Andrew Marr on his Sunday Morning show said he would not go into the details of the allegations of defamation made by some of the ‘witnesses’ in the Panorama broadcast (ie the accusations of bias) because he didn’t want to get into trouble. Chilling?

  • willymarz says:

    Well done.

  • Dave H. says:

    Thank you! You articulate so well my own reactions to the Panorama travesty. I am further interested in the question of Hamas. My understanding is that the Israeli Government initially supported, even promoted Hamas as a counterpoint to the PLO – on the familiar grounds that my enemy’s enemy is my friend. If this is verifiably true, no-one ever speaks of it. If it is not true, I would be glad to be corrected.

  • Paul Byrne says:

    Thanks for your hard work Simon

  • I think there is a real problem in making this argument that yes, there is antisemitism, but it’s statistically insignificant, because you then get into an unseemly argument over how big it is.

    I do not accept that there is any problem at all of antisemitsm. Antisemitism as a form of racism isn’t something inside your head or a social media post it is an action. It might be discrimination, verbal assault or violence. The idea that racism is a tweet is frankly absurd.

    That is precisely why the almost non-existent antisemitism is compared to forms of racism which lead to death, deportation, violent assaults etc. Labour councils evict traveller sites. New Labour demonised asylum seekers. New Labour introduced the ‘hostile environment policy’ (under Alan Johnson). That is racism. It has clear consequences of a physical nature.

    Ideological thought crime is at best a nuisance to be overcome with education or challenging. It is this crass failure to define what we mean is racism which plays into the JLM hands. By accepting there is a problem we then get into an argument of how much. This has been Corbyn’s mistake.

  • Simon Lynn says:

    I am afraid I do not think this is the way we should be responding – just defending and denying everything. If we want to engage more widely with progressive Jews on the left then we need to be more open and reflective and less defensive. For example the mural clearly draws on racist imagery this is not just ‘interpretation’.

  • Carl Clarke says:

    Labour needs to fight this and demonstrate that there is a concerted effort to discredit (at least) and smear. Its been shown that no amount of capitulation will suffice. There is no other option

  • Eric says:

    I sincerely hope the Labour Party take Ware and the BBC to court for and sue for defamation. This is such a blatant attempt to lie and deceive.

    The supposedly ‘impartial’ and taxpayer funded BBC should be ashamed of itself. How on earth did it allow itself to become such a discreditable, tory mouthpiece?

  • Good work and perfectly sums the thoughts of the majority of LP members, thank you for your efforts

  • Nicholas George says:

    It is a shame, rather those involved in smearing the Labour Party from within should be ashamed, that this article will have a narrow viewing compared to the programme.

Comments are now closed.