One of the main concepts in journalism education is that of framing: the highlighting of particular issues, and the avoidance of others, in order to produce a desired interpretation. We have been reminded of the importance of framing when considering the vast amounts of media coverage of Jeremy Corbyn’s alleged failure to deal with antisemitism inside the Labour party. On Sunday, three national titles led with the story while news bulletins focused on the allegations all last week. Dominant sections of the media have framed the story in such a way as to suggest that antisemitism is a problem mostly to do with Labour and that Corbyn is personally responsible for failing to deal with it. The coverage has relied on a handful of sources such as the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council and well-known political opponents of Corbyn himself.

Yet where are the Jewish voices who support Corbyn and who welcome his long-established anti-racist record? Where are the pieces that look at the political motivations of some of Corbyn’s most vocal critics? Where is the fuss in your news columns about the rising tide of antisemitism in Europe, such as in Hungary, where the Fidesz government has used antisemitic tropes to bolster its support, or in Poland, where the government is attempting to criminalise revelations about the country’s antisemitic past? Where are the columns condemning the links between Conservative MEPs and rightwing parties across Europe in the European Conservatives and Reformists Group which trade on antisemitism?

It is not “whataboutery” to suggest that the debate on antisemitism has been framed in such a way as to mystify the real sources of anti-Jewish bigotry and instead to weaponise it against a single political figure just ahead of important elections. We condemn antisemitism wherever it exists. We also condemn journalism that so blatantly lacks context, perspective and a meaningful range of voices in its determination to condemn Jeremy Corbyn.

Prof Des Freedman Goldsmiths, University of London

Justin Schlosberg Birkbeck, University of London

Prof Lynne Segal Birkbeck, University of London

Prof Mica Nava University of East London

Prof Greg Philo Glasgow University

Prof Annabelle Sreberny SOAS, University of London

Prof Jeremy Gilbert University of East London

Prof Joanna Zylinska Goldsmiths, University of London

Prof Bev Skeggs London School of Economics

Prof James Curran Goldsmiths, University of London

Prof Julian Petley Brunel University

Prof Natalie Fenton Goldsmiths, University of London

Prof David Buckingham Loughborough University

Prof Gary Hall Coventry University

Prof Neve Gordon Queen Mary, University of London

Prof Michael Chanan University of Roehampton

Prof John Storey University of Sunderland

Prof Allan Moore University of Surrey

Jo Littler City University

Dina Matar SOAS, University of London

Bart Cammaerts London School of Economics

Tom Mills Aston University

William Merrin Swansea University

Catherine Rottenberg Goldsmiths, University of London

Richard Macdonald Goldsmiths, University of London

Milly Williamson Goldsmiths, University of London

Margaret Gallagher Senior research consultant

Jane Dipple University of Winchester

Peri Bradley Bournemouth University

Dean Lockwood University of Lincoln

Maria Chatzichristodoulou London South Bank University

William Proctor Bournemouth University

John Cunliffe Birkbeck, University of London

Zeta Kolokythopoulu London South Bank University

Becky Gardiner Goldsmiths, University of London

Jill Daniels University of East London

Seth Giddings University of Southampton

Maria Sourbati University of Brighton

Richard Smith Goldsmiths, University of London

Ruth Catlow Co-director, Furtherfield

Jonathan Eato University of York

Theodore Koulouris University of Brighton

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters