The Dispatches programme on the Pro-Israel Lobby was an example of deliberate bias and distortion.
Let's begin with its feel and colour. Assuming for the moment that the programme makers wanted to present the results of their investigation as an earnest piece of journalism, it is not clear why they found it necessary to annotate the broadcast with:-
•Murky reconstructions of secret meetings; expensive dinners; and the Star of David/Union Jack motif;
•The most horrendous video images, which repeatedly and graphically depicted human corpses;
•The placing of its carefully selected interviewees in formats and backgrounds which declared how civilised they were whilst using generally unsympathetic images of those whom they had targeted for criticism.
I have watched the programme only once and I am sure that a closer analysis would reveal more examples but when describing the contrasting conditions of Jews in settlements with Palestinians in the West Bank a trick was employed.
To illustrate life for Jews in the settlements viewers were shown Maale Adumim a modern suburb of Jerusalem which, although beyond the green line, is tacitly acknowledged as being one of those highly populated blocs which, subject to land swaps, will be included within the State of Israel as part of the implementation of the two-state solution.
To reflect the living conditions of West Bank Arabs we were shown what I believe to be the tents of nomadic Bedouin whose living conditions have nothing to do with the settlements or occupation and are not remotely connected with the Palestinian towns and villages, which in turn were not represented in those scenes. Obviously the images of tidy Nablus, Jericho and Ramallah were not strong enough graphics for the programme makers.
It appears that editorially it had been recognised that Peter Oborne’s message could not itself be persuasive as a cool objective analysis without introducing the strong and emotive images that were used.
I think that that is correct. Because in reality the story was lame. Stripped of the overlays and innuendo it was in effect a simple proposition that several wealthy donors in the Jewish community had sufficient concern about the presentation of Israel’s case to the political class and the media that they were willing from their own resources to support organisations that inform and educate parliamentarians and journalists.
Any subtext that a co-ordinated lobby of rich Jews buys the allegiance of MPs and journalists and then cynically controls them in the performance of their functions would obviously have been treated by all right thinking viewers as fanciful and in any event was so unsupported by evidence as to have been rightly dismissed by anyone other than conspiracy theorists and anti-semites.
But as Der Sturmer discovered a crazy story can be given greater appeal if accompanied by effective graphical images. What could have been a serious and respectable investigation was quite deliberately converted into a grotesque horror film complete with soundtrack and villains made to appear diabolical or dastardly in contrast to the scholarly and thoughtful heroes in their book lined rooms and studies.
The irony is that having fed an age-old stereotype, Peter Oborne tried to disclaim responsibility by an express disavowal of the conspiracy theory. By his last-minute disclaimer, he attempted to evade culpability for making a programme that is likely to advance the irrational hatred of Jews.