I'm not optimistic about the outcome. Neither am I surprised that Corbyn came over better when he was actually shown in person. speaking, than all of the UK media, including the supposedly liberal papers portrayed him in the lead-up to campaigning.
I think it's difficult to get the extent of this across. It's the constancy of the narrative and the way that it's infiltrated so comprehensively through all levels of our media that is jaw-dropping. For example, the BBC has prided itself on impartiality over the years and championed this view of it's reporting. So it should - it's a publicly funded service. In practice, over the last 20 years, there's been something of a split, with news journalism taking a distinct position that you might call left of the Tory party but Right of the Labour party, with many of the entertainment areas, from documentary to comedy being rather more left-leaning. This is a broad-brush description and there are many counter-cases. However, over the last 5 years plus, the news journalism has shifted sharply to the right and this has been especially noticeable in reporting of Corbyn and those working with him and for him in the Labour party and beyond.
Techniques include: 1) almost never broadcasting his appearances or directly reporting his words. Instead, a BBC journalist will summarise these and it is this summary that will subsequently be discussed as the news. On one occasion, following the resignation of a Shadow Cabinet member, instead of reporting what the party had to say on the matter, the BBC asked Laura Kuenssberg the BBC political editor 'What will the Labour Leadership be thinking?' She supplied an answer (from her openly right-wing perspective) and this formed the basis of the subsequent 'news' report 2) the ambush. This is done to all politicians from time to time, but it is noticeable that it is done on almost EVERY interview with a Labour politician. Invited to discuss one topic, they will be confronted with, say, an interview given by Corbyn a few years earlier on another topic. This will be stripped of context and chosen to embarrass. 3) focus. The BBC focus has been firmly in line with the Tory Campaign. By focusing on issues that the Tories wish to headline they keep these issues firmly in the public eye. Thus Corbyn's past relationships with the IRA and Hamas are constantly discussed (unlike the numerous Tory party contacts with parties in the conflicts) whereas his policies on, say, re-nationalisation of the railways by not renewing contracts when they fall due (which is a very popular policy) are never discussed. Similarly, discussion will centre on where various Labour luminaries stand on the 'political spectrum', on supposed funding errors in their manifesto, on criticisms of them from the Tory Party and so on - things that are either never mentioned, or mentioned in passing, during reporting of the Tory Party.
The list is endless and there is so much more that I suspect that many BBC journalists no longer realise that they are doing it - and it's often the simplest of language choices. One I recall was a report that the Tories hoped to win a local election whereas the Labour Party aimed to seize power. Other instances include persuading a one of Corbyn's shadow ministers to resign on air during a political discussion show timed to embarrass him during the Prime Minister's Questions parliamentary session. Then again there was an interview between Kuenssberg and Corbyn which she subsequently edited so that it appears he is answering one question when in fact he is answering a wholly different one that she removed. It gave the impression that he disagreed with the use of fire-arms against terrorists such as in the Paris attacks, and this was broadcast on the BBC's prime news slot at 6 in the evening and included a subsequent commentary from Kuenssberg contrasting this false representation of his views with Theresa May's. Incidentally, in case you think the BBC gives a damn or worries about being found out - the BBC's own trust organisation ruled that this interview broke guidelines on impartiality and accuracy but guess what? It's STILL up there on the BBC website and the BBC STILL use it in news discussions as though it's a model of unvarnished truth.
So I won't be shocked by a Tory majority. I think it's sad that somebody who seems rather incompetent and dishonest, and who's instincts are authoritarian and self-serving will probably be Prime Minister again. I think it's both sad and sickening that Insurance brokers including May's husband are slavering at the opportunity to relieve old people of family homes, just as private health care providers are delighted by the new source of income that her proposals promise. I'm incredibly lucky. I have a decent pension and own my home. I can afford to help my children out with rent and the occasional 'bonus'. I'm also acutely aware that they would struggle without this and I feel very sorry for those who now have to face more of the cold wind of Tory austerity in order to fund that tiny elite who grow ever more distant and out of sight at the end of society where all the wealth is piling up.never trust a man in a blue trench coat, never drive a car when you're dead |
