He Said, She Said: Corbyn and the Media

Jeremy Corbyn has had a difficult few weeks as far as his media image is concerned. Firstly, following the emergence of evidence that he was present at a wreath-laying event in Tunisia that supposedly (if you choose to believe certain sources) commemorated the terrorists responsible for the Munich massacre (he claims that he was present to commemorate Palestinian victims of Israeli violence and to promote dialogue as a path for peace, not to memorialise the Munich attackers), he was then dogged by reporters seeking to confirm or disprove his prejudices, and a barrage of news articles were published claiming he was present, he wasn’t, he laid a wreath, he didn’t lay a wreath, the ceremony was to commemorate the Munich attackers, the memorial to the attackers just happened to be nearby, Corbyn’s stance on Israeli aggression against Palestinians is anti-Semitic, it isn’t, he should resign, he shouldn’t, and so on. Throughout it all, Corbyn flopped and floundered and seemed largely unable to cope with the media storm that had descended upon him. Then shortly afterwards, he was found apparently unable to answer a simple question put to him by Channel 4 reporters regarding whether or not he thought the UK would be better off outside the EU.

This is just the latest trauma in a long and rocky relationship between Corbyn and the media. A 2016 report by LSE asserts that “Jeremy Corbyn was represented unfairly by the British press through a process of vilification that went well beyond the normal limits of fair debate and disagreement in a democracy”. The report goes on to suggest that Corbyn was delegitimised by the media through personal attacks and systematic ridicule (p12). A report from Loughborough University showed that negative press coverage of the Labour Party far outweighed positive in the run-up to the 2017 general election (figures 3.1, 3.2, 3.3). Interestingly, the same report revealed that all newspapers, regardless of political leaning, devoted more time to attacking their opponents than to supporting those they endorsed. You could therefore perhaps forgive Corbyn for his comments made on the 23^rd August on Twitter that whilst a free press is essential for democracy, “much of [the UK’s] press is not free at all”.

His argument, that press freedom in the UK is inhibited by it’s ties to business and the state, certainly holds weight. For example, a 2015 report by the Media Reform Coalition found that just two companies, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp UK and the Daily Mail Group, account for nearly 60% of newspaper circulation in the UK. At the local news level, the 3 largest distributors have a 52% share of circulation. On television, Murdoch again looms large, with Sky (of which Murdoch owns 39.1%) dominating the news programming. It is undoubtable that corporate interests shape what stories make the headlines and it is certainly possible for those in power to push agendas that suit their needs. The dominance of a few news corporations in the UK has enabled outlets to be more aggressive in their campaigning than in other European countries, and the tabloid press in particular is often portrayed as amongst the most unforgiving in the world.

Corbyn’s media treatment may have been unfair, but his response has also raised eyebrows. In his speech in Edinburgh on the 23^rd August he evoked the now unanimous idea of “fake news” in his call for media reform. Whilst this was used to point towards the issues of the “billionaire domination” of the media, and the rapidly-declining trust in respected institutions like the BBC, it also, quite clearly, draws comparison to Donald Trump’s attacks on mainstream media that fails to support his agenda. Almost immediately The Independent responded to Corbyn’s speech saying effectively that. Somewhat ironically, the use of the phrase “fake news”, constructed to discredit the media, has in this instance been used by the media to discredit Corbyn’s argument.

Whether you agree with Corbyn’s stance on media freedoms or not, the case of his treatment and response raise important questions about the role and responsibility of journalists globally. Donald Trump’s increasingly aggressive diatribes against the media are harmful to a free press and a threat to democracy. Globally, press freedoms are shrinking, and this is a very scary trend that threatens peace and stability everywhere. But the flipside of this is that the media should take responsibility for what they publish. Due to declining sales of newspapers, a free, corporate press is increasingly consolidating into larger entities in order to stay afloat. It is becoming the only way to survive – and turn a profit – in the media. When subject to corporate interests and/or reliant on advertising revenue, a free press isn’t always that free. Social media, far easier and cheaper to produce, comes with even less oversight than the mainstream media. It’s growing influence fuels the phenomenon of “fake news”, both imagined and real.

Corbyn is right that journalistic freedoms should be protected. He is also right that the current state of the media in the UK is poor. But this debate goes beyond him. If anything, his performance in responding to the anti-Semitism accusations and his inability to respond to questions regarding his personal opinions on Brexit simply reinforce that he, like any other politician, should not be relied upon to tell the truth. Telling the truth is the job of the journalists. It seems that somewhere along the line that sentiment has been lost. Personal attacks, unfair coverage, click-bait headlines and a lack of real, investigative journalism only make it easier for the enemies of the free press to attack it.

It is tempting to write the story you want to write, not the one that is true. This is also true of the media that we consume. We accept what we agree with and attack what we do not. But this makes political discourse almost impossible. Corbyn is not a terrorist-sympathising communist. Nor is he a benevolent saviour of the poor and disadvantaged. He is a political leader with an agenda that you may or may not support. We as the public are owed the right to make our own mind up about that by knowing his policies and his actions.

The free media should do its best to ensure it is protected against these claims that it cannot be trusted. It is too valuable to be lost.