Ok, I know some people are sceptical about Corbyn supporters complaining of bias in the media.Some people see it and are incensed by it. Some people can’t see it.
I will now attempt to explain, using an article I have just read.
the full article is here: It’s the new big thing in politics – the old-style public meeting http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/03/new-big-thing-politics-old-style-public-meeting-labour-battleground-live-events
Quote from Article in the guardian:
“Last week several newspapers published a photo of a long queue of people outside a hall, waiting patiently to be crammed in. Were they waiting to see the Rolling Stones? Had Adele fitted in a few post-Glastonbury gigs? No, they were rolling up to hear Owen Smith, the contender for the Labour leadership. Perhaps the packed audience was hoping he could produce a moment of transformative magic on a stage where, uniquely, arguments must be framed at testing length and questions from the audience answered.”
This shows just how subtle the bias is.
This would have been the perfect opportunity to talk about the massive Corbyn Liverpool event, 7- 10,000 people in the rain, road closed etc. Instead he uses a queue for Owen Smith where they were waiting to be ‘crammed’ into a hall seating less than 500 (a guess, someone tell me if I’m wrong)
Surely describing the Corbyn event would have supported his viewpoint much better. Public meetings are back!
The author is telling the truth, he is giving information, but his choice of how to illustrate his point shows an unsavoury agenda, because his example shows Smith as the popular politician with ‘huge’ queues.
Then we move on to the part that the paper/author will point to as ‘positive’ towards Corbyn
We are used to summers where Jeremy Corbyn packs them in, but there was nothing inevitable about his suddenly acquired magnetism. At the start of his first leadership contest last August, his close ally John McDonnell warned him that, for them, the campaign might be like a sad episode of Last of the Summer Wine as they travelled together, two relatively old men, addressing half empty meetings. Instead, they discovered an appetite for the public meeting that they assumed had disappeared long ago.
Let’s skip over the ‘magnetism’ bit 🙂
His description of Corbyn, while seeming like a positive observation, actually is designed to create an image – John and Jeremy are stupid, bumbling, amusing old men, no mention that actually now they are both greeted like Rock Stars in huge venues… But that’s fine, because John McDonnell said it.
However, John McDonnell said it in jest at the start, before he discovered the huge depth of support that was waiting for them.
To not point out the extent to which John McDonnell was proved wrong, again misses the opportunity to better illustrate his point.
So we are left with this:
The writer is an excellent writer and chose his words with care, in which case, he deliberately chose to continue the ongoing subliminal messaging
(i.e. Jeremy is too old to lead)
The writer is a poor writer, who just scribbles things off the top of his head, without considering the implication of his words.
In either case, the writer should be ashamed of himself.
The Guardian can say they have published a positive Corbyn piece and their ar*e is covered.
The intention is this,
the propaganda is this:
Joe/Joanna Bloggs will finish the article and be left with two images
Owen Smith = Rolling Stones & Adele
Corbyn = Last of the Summer Wine
When the reality is this