I don't think, at heart, she is that aligned with Corbyn
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
I don't think, at heart, she is that aligned with Corbyn
Odd response. Everything about her would suggest you’re wrong but you obviously know her ‘heart’ better.
Wow. All I can say is, try reading a bit wider than your current choices. That’s a lot of Daily Mail.
No I don't. But i have watched and listened to her quite a bit. Can't quite put my finger on it but she doesn't convince that she is as left wing as she says. She would I reckon be open to more centrist opinions.
I don't read the DM. I don't read any paper.
Corbyn and McDonnell subscribe to Marxist ideals and I don't agree with them. End of.
Well phew, as they say. A line in the sand normally means 'If you cross it I'll twat you', so I was starting to wonder what his plans were.Don't be mean to our Jezza!
he doesn't speak to factions, that he deems "adversarial". He speaks to factions (and declares solidarity with them), that he believes are on the right side of a conflict/struggle. He is a consistent activist for the side, that he sees as oppressed. He is pretty consistent in this regard and thats fine. Most people explicitly or implicitly take a side in these conflicts. To re-brand that as "speaking with all side, even those he disagrees with" is simply false.
btw:
Trump supporters: mainstream media is dominated by liberals, who just slander/smear Trump to advance a liberal agenda.
Corbyn supporters: mainstream media is dominated by right-wingers, who just slander/smear Corbyn to advance a corporate agenda.
Both are also equally conspiratorial. The only difference is, that Trump & supporters are a lot more vulgar.
One of the great ironies of the last few years. The “MSM” is being accused of being simultaneously biased against the left and the right. Which probably means they’re getting things more or less correct.
I mean...in the context of the British printing press, this pretty much is true. The biggest publications such as the DM, Sun and Express are quite genuinely vehemently against him and anyone who's even remotely left. On his own side he's got The Guardian, who aren't even that strongly for him at best but who more align to a vaguely liberal platform when it suits them.
The constant claims of bias concerning the BBC come from all sides and so tend to hold a lot less weight, even if there are sometimes fair issues raised, but it can't really be doubted that a huge portion of the media is biased against him. Even if (in cases like this) he's got a lot to answer for himself.
There is some truth to that, but its more a question of degree and responds to it.
Many of the mainstream US print-media publications tends to favour a centrist liberal cause (and the majority of writers/editors self-identify as liberal) and they don't always give divergent views a fair hearing. They certainly loathe Trump and their writing reflects that to some extend. That doesn't mean, that everything they write is false or that the reasonable responds is to gravitate to publications, that are far more tribal/one-sided.
I don't know much about british print media. They are probably on average centrist-right and don't like Corbyn. At times their writing seems to be pretty one-sided and unfair. That doesn't mean, that all their opinions/criticisms are wrong. It certianly doesn't mean, that one should totally disregard their writings and only turn to publications, that are at least as biased and act as uncritical cheerleader.
TheGuardian is the only UK media that I read frequently; they are no cheerleaders for corbyn, but frequently publish articles, that portrait him in a positive light. Corbyn is no centrist (that isn't meant as value-judgement, but as descriptive observation). On many topics, inlcluding foreign policy, he is certainly outside the mainstream consensus. Consequently fewer writers agree with him and he'll face more criticism.
So, I am not disagreeing with you and your observation. Papers like the DM, Sun or the Express probably scandalize and exaggerate when it comes to Corbyn. Nontheless, Corbyn is a controversial figure with a lot of baggage. Answering any critical journalism with fundamental outrage about bias in not a constructive way forward. That just copies the tribalism (incl. unquestioned loyalty one's side) of the other side.
------
I don't want to imply that Corbyn and Trump are treated equally unfair. They are not.
+
Similar issues also happen in other countries with non-mainstream candidates/parties, that challange the political centrist mainstream (e.g. AfD, M5S).
Can't/won't give a straight answer:
He looks stressed as feck.
He looks stressed as feck.
The Daily Mail, Sun and Express all go beyond mild centre-right sentiment. Especially in the wake of Brexit. Not all of their criticisms will necessarily be incorrect but they deliberately employ bias against Corbyn (as well as Labour and general liberal sentiment) to the extreme with sensationalised stories, and tend to be among the most popular papers.
The Guardian's coverage of him is mild at best, but he doesn't really have any mainstream publication that's fervently for him in the way that various are against him. This can be said for Labour in general ever since Murdoch shifted back to the Tories.
Like you say a lot of the criticism made of him is fair, but the initial point suggesting that citing the mainstream media are biased against Corbyn as a conspiracy doesn't really work for me, because to a significant extent it genuinely is true. Bias shouldn't be called out at every turn (and this story is a perfect example because it's legitimate and fair to call Corbyn out here) but saying that the mainstream media is generally against Corbyn isn't at all conspiratorial - to a significant extent they'd openly admit that's the case. Broadcast is a bit different right enough.
Pretty much admits it in that interview, surely?
Blimey!
He knew there were pictures of him holding the wreath at the ceremony yesterday. Why lie about not participating at that point only to roll it back 24 hours later?
Or you could have spoken to the SDLP, the other actually more representative Irish nationalist party in the 1980s. Which Corbyn never did.
Probably lots of PR bickering behind the scenes about what is more damaging to the Corbyn “brand”, coming out of this looking ignorant or looking sneaky.
The SDLP are not and were not republicans though and took their seats in Westminster unlike Sinn Fein. Any suggestion that there could have been the peace process we enjoy today without the back channel engagement with Sinn Fein and the IRA during the troubles is simply naive.
Also the idea that Corbyn didn't have talks with the SDLP when the SDLP take the Labour whip in parliament and he was involved with the campaign for the inquest into Bloody Sunday is pretty absurd. Here he is with John Hume himself.
Not sure his answers could be any straighter, unless you mean not allowing his answers to be manipulated to suit the journos agenda, then yea... I agree though he looks very stressed. I think the fact hes being Interviewed by someone who must share the same IQ as a potato may have some bearing on his mood.
Some interesting replies to the Video, Including this one...
"There are no Munich terrorists in the cemetery Jeremy Corbyn visited at the Peace conference in Tunisia.
The 8 terrorists who committed the Munich Massacre were: Luttif Afif – Killed by West German Police at the scene Yusuf Nazzal – Killed by West German Police at the scene Afif Ahmed Hamid – Killed by West German Police at the scene Khalid Jawad – Killed by West German Police at the scene Ahmed Chic Thaa – Killed by West German Police at the scene Mohammed Safady – Captured by West German Police Adnan Al-Gashey – Captured by West German Police Jamal Al-Gashey – Captured by West German Police Just a month after the capture of Mohammed Safady, Adnan Al-Gashey and his brother Jamal Al-Gashey, all three were released by West German authorities in a hostage swap.
However, in 1972, the Israeli Security service Mossad instigated a secret Operation, code-named Wrath of God, in which both Mohammed Safady and Adnan Al-Gashey were allegedly tracked down and murdered by Mossad agents. The final terrorist, Jamal Al-Gashey, was last known to be alive in 1999, hiding in either North Africa or Syria, and living in fear of retribution from Israeli security services.
Of the 8 terrorists listed above who perpetrated the atrocity, NONE are buried at the cemetery in Tunisia that Corbyn visited: Luttif Afif – Buried at Sidi Munaidess Cemetery, Libya Yusuf Nazzal – Buried at Sid Munaidess Cemetery, Libya Afif Ahmed Hamid – Buried at Sid Munaidess Cemetery, Libya Khalid Jawad – Buried at Sid Munaidess Cemetery, Libya Ahmed Chic Thaa – Buried at Sid Munaidess Cemetery, Libya Mohammed Safady – Allegedly killed by Mossad, unknown grave Adnan Al-Gashey – Allegedly killed by Mossad, unknown grave Jamal Al-Gashey – Was reportedly still alive in 1999"
Who said they were buried there?
He could simply answer whether or not the wreath he laid was at the graves of the men in question.
The claim is not that the men who actually carried out the attack are there. The men in question were members of the same organisation and involved in planning the operation.
Imagine if after all of that they weren't even buried in the graveyard. 
Doing some quick research: "The bodies of Afif and his four compatriots were turned over to Libya, and after a procession from Tripoli's Martyrs' Square, were buried in the Sidi Munaidess Cemetery.[16]"
Sidi Munaidess Cemetery is apparently located in Tripoli (Libya for those shite at Geography).
Was the claim that he was laying the wreath on the graves of the terrorists? Or that it was a ceremony honouring them?
Doing some quick research: "The bodies of Afif and his four compatriots were turned over to Libya, and after a procession from Tripoli's Martyrs' Square, were buried in the Sidi Munaidess Cemetery.[16]"
Sidi Munaidess Cemetery is apparently located in Tripoli (Libya for those shite at Geography).
Was the claim that he was laying the wreath on the graves of the terrorists? Or that it was a ceremony honouring them?
Here's the claim in the original DM article:
"Last night sources close to Mr Corbyn insisted he was at the service in 2014 to commemorate 47 Palestinians killed in an Israeli air strike on a Tunisian PLO base in 1985.
But on a visit to the cemetery this week, the Daily Mail discovered that the monument to the air strike victims is 15 yards from where Mr Corbyn is pictured – and in a different part of the complex.
Instead he was in front of a plaque that lies beside the graves of Black September members.
The plaque honours three dead men: Salah Khalaf, who founded Black September; his key aide Fakhri al-Omari; and Hayel Abdel-Hamid, PLO chief of security."
According to this, Fakhri al-Omari was one of the masterminds of the Munich operation.
I googled them and got this: https://www.jta.org/1991/01/16/arch...-fatal-blow-with-assassination-of-two-leaders
All the other links were from the past week.
Based on that, and admitting my very poor knowledge of both conflicts, could Khalaf be compared to Gerry Adams?
From what I've read, more Martin McGuiness.
I'm just showing my ignorance of both really - in my head Adams went from military leader to calling for talks, and he's the only one I know.
Arafat would be the correct comparison for Adams. Khalaf seems to have been a more hands-on number 2, like McGuiness.
So the Daily Mail running with the headline "Corbyn's wreath at graves of Munich terrorists" is actually misleading as none of the actual terrorists were buried there. Must admit, i'm very surprised.
Probably requires someone who isn't a Daily Mail reporter to actually translate the gravestone. Not sure what the number 28 represents on it.
we have on this very page someone who argues, that the posted interviews are prove for agenda journalism. Lets recap: At first Corbyn lied about the incident and then he diddled around and tried to avoid to answer a pretty simple question, but the journalist who is asking the questions is at fault and somehow deceiving? Any decent journalist would have be a lot tougher and asked why he changed his story during the 48 hours about 10 times.
This poster is certainly not speaking for anyone but himself, but scroling through some of the twitter replies, this is one of the major themes of Corbyn supporters. Corbyn as a shitload of controversial baggage and is outside the mainstream. Of course he'll get some flack. Is he treated unfairly by centrist and conservative papers? Yes. Do they frequently scandalize and exaggerate minor issues? Yes. Still, its nowhere near as bad as one would assume reading the social media posts from his supporters. This current issue would pretty much kill the carrer of any mainstream politican. So apparently being differnt has its perks as well.
Last edited:
To this end someone from the Corbyn supporters group, Jewish Voices for Labour, was interviewed on the Today programme this morning, they were asked why Jezza keeps finding himself in these positions with these people. She began her answer "Netanyahu supports violence......" - the interviewer intervened, correctly pointed out that this wasn't answering the question. The woman then accused him of "badgering" her, social media described the interviewer as "hysterical". This is where we are now, the interviewer was neither badgering or hysterical, simply wouldn't allow someone to answer the question by completely changing the subject. Yet all day on social media it's been used evidence of media bias. A journalist insisting that someone answers a question they've asked them is now "badgering" and "hysterical"
There's a LOT of overlap between the support of Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn and one of the big ones seem to be how utterly fragile and precious its supporters are towards ANY kind of scrutiny and questioning of their leader. Because we live in a time where people think they're being informed by using "news" outlets that they know will confirm their own bias, any kind of outside questioning or scrutiny by journalists is seen as an "attack" or "smear". It's a troubling trend we're moving towards where there seems to be now a genuine hostility towards politicians being questioned or held to account.
Anything short of a Swarkbox/Canary interview where the only question was something along the lines of: "Jeremy, you've been smeared by lies in the media this week. Please take this opportunity to set the record straight, and if there's time please feel free to boast about the size of your massive cock" - is now deemed completely unacceptable and evidence of "anti-Corbyn bias"
In the old days politicians used to get duffed up by interviewers and have to take it on the chin. We'd all rather enjoy it usually, seeing Paxman put someone through the wash, even politicians we quite like. Now if there's a hint of a follow-up question #WeStandByCobryn starts to trend and hundreds of angry, salty-tear soaked letters get sent to Ofcom. It's more than a bit pathetic.
Last edited:
This is not the Daily Mail's fault. Ultimately this fiasco is down to Corbyn, his actions that day, and his subsequent bungled attempts to evade responsibility for it. The interview above is as clear a case of a politician caught in a lie as you'll see.
The line now being pushed - that none of the actual Munich operatives are there, therefore Corbyn did nothing wrong - is an insult to our intelligence, as Corbyn himself obviously knows. It's like implying that it would be fine to lay a wreath for, say, bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, since they weren't actually among the 9/11 hijackers.
To give Corbyn a further benefit of the doubt here - he seems a bit mixed up over who was killed where and by whom, which suggests either ignorance on his part or else he was fed false information at the ceremony.
He referred to "those killed by Mossad in Paris in 1991", but apparently there was only one Mossad assassination on a Black September member conducted in Paris, and it was 1992. The three other guys whose graves he was photographed at were killed in Tunis in 1991, but most people think they were killed by the Abu Nidal group (rival Palestinian faction), not the Mossad. So he either just assumed the three were also killed by Israel, or else he was told they were at the ceremony.
Absolute car crash defending him in Newsnight.