Both before and since publishing our research, which raised serious concerns about the Guardian’s coverage of antisemitism within the Labour Party, we have made strident efforts to engage in constructive dialogue with both editorial and public affairs staff. Unfortunately, these efforts do not appear to have borne any fruit to date. There has also been no reporting or commenting on our research, despite the significant public debate and controversy that it sparked. We nevertheless continue to hope and expect that a reflexive and considered response to the evidence will be forthcoming.. —

Dear Mr Chadwick

On 1^st October I submitted a formal complaint in regards to the evidence of inaccurate and misleading coverage on TheGuardian.com of antisemitism in the Labour Party. This evidence was documented in a research report produced for the Media Reform Coalition which found marked skews in sourcing, false statements or assertions of fact, and a systematic pattern of highly contentious claims by sources that were not duly challenged or qualified in news reports. These problems were predominantly found in  coverage of the controversy surrounding Labour’s revised code of conduct during the summer of 2018.

Since the initial submission of my complaint, I responded in a full and timely manner to a succession of detailed email queries that you raised, culminating in a further submission of raw data for our research on 4^th October. This bespoke dataset was put together so as to make it as accessible and easily navigable as possible, and to make clear the evidence that we found pertaining specifically to coverage on TheGuardian.com.

Having taken the time to respond to your queries in this way, I requested an indicative timeframe as to when I might expect a response. I note that on 1^st October you stated that you had  read the research report and on 5^th October, in response to my request for an indicative timeframe, you stated that “When I have had an opportunity to look at the material I will be back in touch.” I have not heard from you since.

I also note that the Reader’s Editor guidelines states that “We aim to give a substantive response to your complaint within 28 days of receiving all the necessary information to allow us to investigate. However, this may take longer in more complex cases where more information is required, or where journalists are away or unreachable.”

Since I have received no requests for further information since 4^th October, and have not been made aware of any other issues that may be unusually obstructing your investigation, I wish to raise additional concern about the apparent absence of a timely response to my complaint on this issue.

As you are aware, the research underpinning my complaint has been endorsed by a wide range of experts as well as public figures. It has sparked considerable debate on social media platforms and attracted significant attention from independent media outlets. Neither the Guardian nor Observer newspapers have reported or commented on the research. That is a matter of editorial judgement. But I’m sure you will agree that readers and  members – as well as the wider public – deserve a timely and comprehensive response to the controversial findings. If any of the evidence of editorial failures is rejected, we need to know which aspects specifically and why. If any of the evidence is accepted, we need to know what kind of remedies will be applied to address the problems identified. Under the circumstances, anything less will inevitably give rise to further, and in some ways more fundamental concerns about the Guardian’s commitment to accountability, as well as the efficacy and integrity of the complaints process.

Yours sincerely Dr Justin Schlosberg For and on behalf of the Media Reform Coalition