The British media has launched
an unprecedented campaign of disinformation against Jeremy Corbyn.
The British media has never
had much time for Jeremy Corbyn.
Within a week of his election
as Labour Party leader in September, it was engaging in a campaign the Media
Reform Coalition characterized as an attempt to “systematically undermine”
his position. In an avalanche of negative coverage 60 percent of all
articles which appeared in the mainstream press about Corbyn were negative with
only 13 percent positive. The newsroom, ostensibly the objective arm of the
media, had an even worse record: 62 percent negative with only 9 percent
positive.
This sustained attack had
itself followed a month of wildly misleading headlines about Corbyn and his policies
in these same outlets. Concerns about sexual assaults on public transport were
construed as campaigning for women-only trains. Advocacy for Keynesian fiscal
and monetary policies was presented as a plan to “turn Britain into Zimbabwe.”
An appeal to reconsider the foreign policy approach of the last decade was
presented as an association with Putin’s Russia.
In the months which followed
the attacks continued. Particularly egregious examples, such as the criticism
of Corbyn for refusing to “bow
deeply enough” while paying his respects on Remembrance Day, stick in the
memory. But it is the insidious rather than the ridiculous which best
characterizes the British media’s approach to Corbyn.
One example of this occurred
in January when it was revealed that the BBC’s political editor Laura
Kuenssberg had coordinated the resignation of a member of Corbyn’s shadow
cabinet so that it would occur live on television. Planned for minutes before
Corbyn was due to engage in Prime Minister’s Questions, it was a transparent
attempt to inflict the maximum damage possible to his leadership.
The bias at Britain’s public
broadcaster has become so blatant that it has drawn criticism from prominent
former employees. Kuenssberg’s predecessor, Nick Robinson, described himself as “shocked” at the regularity of the
attacks, and the former chair of the BBC Trust Sir Michael Lyons, made comments
earlier this year condemning
the “quite extraordinary attacks on the elected leader of the Labour Party.”
But perhaps the most
extraordinary episode has been the accusations of antisemitism levelled at
Corbyn and the Labour leadership in the run up to May’s local elections. As
Jamie Stern-Weiner demonstrated in
this excellent article in OpenDemocracy, “the chasm between the evidence
and the sweeping condemnations which have appeared in the press is truly vast.”
In the week-long controversy
only one allegation of antisemitism was made against an MP. The rest were based
on social media comments made by eight junior party members in a party of
hundreds of thousands. Some of these, as in the case of the dispute in Oxford,
were even proven to be fabricated. Despite this, media headlines described
Labour as a “cold house for Jews,” a “cesspit” and a “racist party.”
Coup Collaboration
The British media’s bias
against Corbyn made it a useful weapon in the coup attempt against his
leadership orchestrated by right-wing Labour MPs.
In the days after the Brexit
vote forty-six MPs resigned from Corbyn’s shadow cabinet in
forty-eight hours, spacing out their announcements to allow them to occur on an
hourly basis live on air. The narrative for these resignations was set
up in a BBC article on June 26th by Kuenssberg which accused Corbyn of having
“deliberately sabotaged” the Remain campaign despite providing no evidence of
such a plot.
This was to be only the
beginning of the inaccuracies about Corbyn in the mainstream press.
On June 29, the Guardian reported that Thomas Piketty had resigned as an advisor to
Corbyn citing his “weak” leadership of the Remain campaign. This prompted
another economic advisor, Anne Pettifor, to release an
email sent more than two weeks before the result from Piketty explaining
that his resignation was due to “time commitments” and “making clear that I do
support Jeremy and his attempt to bring Labour more to the left.”
The next day the Guardian
caused a stir at the launch of a report into antisemitism in the Labour Party
when it misquoted Corbyn as having compared Israel to ISIS. In fact, as it
later had to admit in a correction, he had done no such thing.
This prompted the author of
Labour’s antisemitism report, Shami Chakrabarti, to condemn the “deliberate misrepresentation” of Corbyn’s
speech, while Daily Mirror journalist Kevin Maguire said that
“facts, fairness, rationality and proportionality” had been “lost in a frenzy
to destroy Corbyn.”
But it was too late — the
controversy had already seen “ISIS Israel” trending on Twitter for most of the
day.
On July 1, the Guardian again
misreported a crucial detail in relation to Corbyn when it implied that John
McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, had come out against freedom of movement
after Brexit. This drew criticism from many on the Left before McDonnell had to
step in to correct
the record.
The next day the media had
contrived another controversy relating to Corbyn, this time what the Telegraph described as a “furious confrontation” with a journalist at
an anti-racism rally. Articles initially reported that Corbyn had “lunged” at a
“female journalist.” However, when video of the incident was released, it
became clear that he had simply turned around and said “if you want to arrange
an interview speak to my press office. Thank you.” The journalist in question
later came out to say that she had, in fact, not been “lunged at.”
Media Monopoly
It can be tempting, when
examining the media’s response to Jeremy Corbyn, to be drawn to the ridiculous
excess of the right-wing press when it criticizes his gardening skills or accuses him of eating noodles, but the problem in the
British press runs much deeper than this.
The BBC’s willingness to offer
its live broadcasting as a venue for transparent media manipulation by
establishment Labour MPs are a timely reminder of its inability to be relied on
as a public service broadcaster.
Even the traditionally
left-wing media — not only the Guardian and Observer, but also the Daily Mirror — have been more than willing to join the
chorus of voices calling for Corbyn to step down. This is not a response to the
market but rather a political decision, as their own
research demonstrates that their readerships do not agree with this
editorial line.
At the time of writing there
is not a single mainstream media outlet in Britain with an editorial line
supporting Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. This is despite the fact that, under
Corbyn, Labour this week became the largest social-democratic party in the Western
world with 600,000 members.
A representative media
environment, even one that was responding to market pressures, could be
expected to reflect this groundswell of support. But Britain does not have such
an environment.
Around 70 percent of Britain’s newspapers are owned by just three
companies: Rupert Murdoch’s News UK, the Daily Mail’s General Trust, and
Trinity Mirror. In broadcast media over 80 percent of the national audience
share goes to Murdoch or to the BBC. This concentration of media ownership
allows for a tiny clique in Britain to effectively control the flow of
information to 65 million people. Their power to do so is not held to any
meaningful account, and their willingness to use their position to subvert the
democratic will should not be doubted.
Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to the
leadership of the Labour Party was an earthquake in politics which reflected a
deep disillusionment in the political and economic system. His tenure in that
position has been shaped by a media environment which is no less in need of
such an earthquake.
No comments:
Post a Comment