Baddiel's latest intervention in the Labour antisemitism campaign is intriguing. Baddiel claims 'someone on the NEC' told him something - 'and this is probably true…’ - and then the smear.
I think it’s possible this marks a new phase of the smearing war. Previously the smears have been predicated on at least *some* evidence, no matter how flimsy or distorted or exaggerated. There was something concrete to point to - a mural, a wreath, whatever else.
But here, we just have ‘someone said something which is probably true.’ That’s the entire evidentiary warrant for this story - that someone Baddiel doesn’t name told him something, and Baddiel thought it was probably true.
That’s it. No mural, no wreath - and certainly no ‘leaflet’ - but only what can most charitably be characterised as ‘hearsay’, or, perhaps more accurately, ‘gossip’.
Baddiel doesn't bother with even the fig-leaf of fraudulent 'evidence' anymore. ‘Someone told me…’ is apparently sufficient, so poisoned has the information environment become. ‘Someone told me and it’s probably true’ is fine, actually.
That’s all they need now, the barest gesture towards a ‘fact’, a dog-ate-my-homework get-out, glib and shallow and casual. ‘Probably true’ is true enough, and ‘Someone told me…’ is a valid source.
Thus UK journalism, in which gossip is retailed as fact and no-one asks any awkward questions, because they, like Baddiel, believe it’s ‘probably true’ too.
As @caraandomhain points out, 'belief' is irrelevant here if it's the right kind of material. It's questionable if anyone really, genuinely believes any of this nonsense anymore.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
