Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Why Was The Liberal Press So Wrong On Corbyn’s Labour?

Why Was The Liberal Press So Wrong On Corbyn’s Labour? 18 Jun 2017 12:52 #3281

  • Paul-UB40
  • Paul-UB40's Avatar
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 1713
  • Thank you received: 1040
JUN 2017 Friday 16TH posted by SOLOMON HUGHES

Mainstream journalists are unlikely to step outside their own political ‘gated community’ of lobbyists and think tanks – which is why we need alternative media,

WHY did the “serious” media get Labour’s prospects so seriously wrong? The Stupid Prize goes to the New Statesman, with a cover showing an asteroid about to destroy Jeremy Corbyn.

The Statesman’s editor Jason Cowley backed the cover with a 3,000-word editorial, as wrong as it was long. Written on the eve of the election, Cowley confidently predicted: “Whether it loses 30, 50 or even 70 seats, the Labour Party is heading — and it gives me no pleasure to say this — for a shattering defeat under Jeremy Corbyn, just when it should have been seeking to remake our politics for the common good.”

The exact opposite happened. It is not fair to pick on Cowley. We have had two years of almost every “pundit” of every national newspaper telling us Corbyn would inevitably lead Labour to disaster.

Conservative papers were always against Corbyn. The liberal press was almost always against Corbyn. One or two commentators on the Guardian backed him, but even they, under tremendous pressure from their peers, wobbled.

But 300,000 Labour Party members re-elected Corbyn to the leadership. Every one of them was wiser than the wise heads in the newspapers and magazines.

More Here;
YNWA: You'll Never Walk Alone
The administrator has disabled public write access.