1/ I have read the report and have tried to do so with an open mind. I think some of what is says is interesting - the media are not always accurate in reporting about antisemitism. But, I have some concerns.
2/ My primary concern is that this is a report which relies on highly contentious assumptions about the nature of antisemitism and the facts behind the crisis. It has, therefore, to be impeccably independent and impartial to be treated seriously.
3/ Justin Schlosberg, the primary author of the report, is a prominent member of Jewish Voice for Labour. JVL is a problematic organisation which ran a counter demonstration at the "Enough is Enough" event in the Spring. It seems to not take genuine antisemitism seriously at all
4/ I am not going to litigate the issues with JVL here. But if we are looking for someone to conduct an impartial and sensitive report of this nature, choosing Schlosberg - who blamed antisemitism crisis on "right wing Jewish Lobby" - is not a good start (independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi…) 
5/ The report itself has some fairly interesting stuff about the IHRA definition not being 'universally adopted" (fair) but some press getting that wrong, yes. But it also seeks to exonerate Marc Wandsworth which seems an odd focus.
6/ Also, since they are so prominent, it would be interesting to see sources such as The Canary (which is so regularly quoted to me by Labour's defenders) in this analysis.
7/ I am sure this report will be quoted to me regularly as 'proof' of media bias over antisemitism. I think that report would be an interesting one to write in a rigorous and impartial way, but I don't think this is that report.
