Cross refer the news reports and newspaper headlines these days and it is easy to expose the tricks used to spin a quote into drama that suits an established agenda.
This has always been the case of course, but with Jeremy Corbyn as their target it has suddenly become more desperate and more obvious due to the McCarthyite tendency in the mainstream news media.
But some are “not that biased” you say, (perhaps referring to the BBC or Guardian), really?
Yes, they are.
99% of BBC commenting news journalists had the same upper class schooling as Osborne, Clegg and Cameron, rather than the commoner’s version of learning of Labour MPs, Skinner, Corbyn and Johnson. Nick Robinson was a former leader of the Young conservatives and many more BBC hacks go on to right wing organisations as a career enhancement than go to work at Ruskin college. They have been trained, not only to keep the establishment boat steady, (which is the opposite of good journalism) but to ridicule and mock anyone who presents a serious risk of exposing the clay feet of an establishment that cheats the poor to feed the rich more caviar.
This is Nick Robinson’s school, Cheadle Hume, Stockport,
…where Conservatism was plumbed into the water supply.
As for newspaper barons, sitting in their tax free non-dom or private island homes, we really do not need to debate why they will do everything short of blatant imprisonable offences to knock Corbyn, and anyone else with political power, daring to promote democracy and people over profits.
An example –
This story was widely reported by the BBC and others as “Corbyn denies that Immigration is an issue”..
a subtle difference you might say. But then, when the context is changed to counter this…
…which is phrased yet again in all tabloid Twitter headlines out of context to say “Burnham admits immigration a major problem” – many supposedly news reporting hacks now hail these quotes as supporting the idea of “a disastrous split” in the cabinet.
But when you compare what these two actually said, they were between them admitting that Labour had handled this badly in the past, and that while there can be localised problems, the long term benefits are evidenced and clear.
That’s my spin, perhaps, but it is closer to what they actually said than the BBC and Guardian can manage.
Laura Kuennsberg, across many platforms of the BBC this evening, sounded delighted as she described the “aghast” fellow cabinet members because Corbyn had gone against Labour policy and stated that he would never launch a nuclear strike as PM…(we knew this from day one)
“Labour could be in meltdown”, she said, “Corbyn has upset his ministers by contradicting Labour policy”.
But take in the whole of BBC interviews, including the one SHE conducted with him, and you will know that he had already talked about the need for debate and allowing different views, and that whatever his party voted for as policy he would abide by. He was then asked, if he was PM, would he launch a nuclear strike. It was the same question he had answered to Sarah Montague on the Today show 6 hours earlier- when his answer, “No” was hailed by Paul Waugh on twitter thus…
The irony of his own comment “#boom” was possibly deliberate but could as easily be read as his own insane desire to blow up the planet… (subconsciously assuming his Westminster womb is spared?).
There followed a “host” of at least one Labour MP saying how they had stood for election on a mandate of retaining the nuclear force. One John Woodcock, said that Corbyn’s position, “made the grotesque horror of a nuclear holocaust more likely”.
This is an MP from the part of Cumbria that has its livelihood staked in the nuclear energy industry; his stance is as a long standing lobbyist for everything nuclear. So perhaps the “holocaust” he was foolishly referring to was the metaphoric one of his constituents lost jobs, and his ticket to ride…
They could have begun to have the serious debate on “why nuclear?” – but the issue is trickier than my much retweeted statement about it being about bigger dick pics – the fact that John Woodcock and nearly all others neglect to mention is the trade off between nuclear power and nuclear weapons – while it is possible to have one without the other there is a reason that Iran has had such a hard time from the international bully police in creating a nuclear energy plant. Weapons grade plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear energy industry – but it is only ever raised as an issue by the campaign for nuclear disarmament…
And all the time the press are focusing on spinning Corbyn’s quotes, and the somewhat tortured attempts of his establishment-trained fellow MPs to bring about party unity by… failing to understand what he is saying altogether.
The people who brought you “screw the poor, kill the disabled, close the libraries, end Human Rights laws, force the NHS to break up and be ruined, while snorting cocaine and wanking in a dead pig’s mouth
– seem to be immune from criticism.
Welcome to the transparently untrustworthy establishment 4th estate where news journalism has not only become too heavily laden with comment, it has reversed its supposed role, now comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted. It has become a “sneeritariat” Times, Torygraph, Tabloids, Guardian, BBC and more, all choosing to mock the common man and posing no challenge to conventional money-worshipping conservative thinking.