Corbyn and Sanders. One is a misogynist, the other a dirty commie. Well, that’s what we are supposed to believe, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Let’s take a closer look shall we?
Jeremy Corbyn is certainly different from the Labour leaders immediately before him. I suppose that is lucky for him. Tony Blair’s legacy is an oil war that is still waging on. Gordon Brown’s is the financial crash and Ed “Hell yes, I’m tough enough” Miliband’s is throwing away an election.
The point is Jeremy Corbyn stands for something different in British politics and if you agree with him or not at least he offers something different and surely this is the bedrock of a democratic society, no? His major problem is he has beliefs and these run contrary to what the people running the media stand for. Corbyn has been around long enough to understand that and it for this reason he is not playing ‘the game’, or dressing in Ted Baker suits and coming up with meaningless, albeit snazzy, sound bites as it is also known.
After Labour collapsed in the General Election, The Telegraph was quick to point out it was more to do with Miliband’s bungling campaign rather a swing to the left amongst the Labour electorate. Then Jeremy Corbyn was elected their new leader and that theory was shot to bits. From the off it looked unlikely he would get a fair judgement by the mainstream media.
There are some obvious examples of this. Firstly, when he announced his shadow cabinet he was derided as a misogynist. Which is interesting because if you add up the number of women compared to men in his cabinet there are actually two more women than men.
This misogyny angle is one that keeps rearing its ugly head. During the week, a journalist called Laura Kuenssberg was booed and hissed as she asked the Labour leader a question during a Q & A session. Now, nobody likes to see this and Corbyn did grin, which was wrong of him. The way this was reported was way over the top. From the media coverage, including the supposedly left-leaning The Guardian, it sounded like a near riot which Corbyn seemed happy to indulge. The reality is a small section booed and hissed for about five seconds and then Corbyn asked them to stop. As simple as that.
Kuenssberg and Labour do have history. A number of Labour followers put forward a petition to get Kuenssberg sacked from her job as BBC political editor. The petition was taken down due to a number of sexist remarks made about Kuenssberg. It’s dreadful that this happened. But, to link this back to Corbyn is clutching at straws. Unfortunately, women suffer a serious amount online abuse, to put this example down to Corbyn is simply ridiculous.
The mainstream media was very quick to mention the petition being should down. What they omitted to mention was the reason the petition was put forward in the first place. In the council elections, the media predicted a meltdown for Labour that never materialised. Laura Kuenssberg was chief amongst the naysayers and she read the Labour MP John McDonnell’s notes back to him on air. Basically, McDonnell wrote that it would a long road back for Labour and Kuenssberg was asking why he was making excuses for his party even though the results weren’t in.
Then there are the infamous Eamonn Holmes interviews. He was extremely patronising towards Corbyn. He asked him did he borrow his tie and then said that the red tie was perfect for him. Red tie, links to communism. Brilliant Eamonn. How long did it take your writers to come up with that? Whereas he fawned all over David Cameron and called him the master. It was disgusting. He told Corbyn he had to ask him tough questions because he didn’t want to be seen sucking up to him, a problem he didn’t have with Cameron.
This is just a thought, but maybe the world would be a better a place if the mainstream media held those in power accountable rather than asking the opposition about their wardrobe. Cameron’s father benefitted financially from a company with off-shore tax havens, the same company which the son later sold on his shares. Surely, this is a much bigger issue than anything Corbyn has ever done or said. There were stories about an initiation right Cameron had to perform to join the Piers Gaveston Society in Oxford. Whether he did or not is irrelevant. What is important to take from the story is that Cameron hung around with the elite in his time there. His father got away with not paying taxes for years. How can anyone support a man that is the leader of a party that has so often been accused of elitism and being out of touch if this is his personal background? There is an investigation into a massive paedophile ring that allegedly went all the way to the top of British society, but Eamonn Holmes would rather focus on what Jeremy Corbyn is wearing. Regardless of your political affiliations, you have to admit there is something wrong with this picture.
And there is the American Trotskyite. Bernie Sanders. Irish rugby pundit used to refer the old French rugby coach Bernard Laporte as mad Bernie. It’s difficult not to get the impression the media wants to do the same with Bernie Sanders.
Recently I was reading an article by Charles Krauthammer in which he claimed that Sanders’ policies “would bring the terror war, quite fatally, to the very heart of Israel — Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Ben Gurion Airport. Israel is now excoriated for declining that invitation to national suicide.” It’s hard to believe that Sanders, who is Jewish, would ask for the state of Israel to extinguish its own existence. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is enormously complicated and to say one side is right and the other is wrong is puerile. However, the Israelis are the side that has the money to build an elaborate anti-missile system. So, it is unfair to say the Israelis are the victims in all this when this missile system blocks over 90% of Palestinian-fired rockets. We also have to consider that one side, Palestine, is not recognised as a country and therefore has little international rights. It is this imbalance Sanders seeks to address.
A real strange thing happened at one of Sanders’ rallies in Seattle. It was overrun and taken over by the Black Lives Matter movement. Why? Of all the candidates they could have picked it was Sanders. He marched with Martin Luther King and was arrested for protesting for civil rights. I thought this would be the one candidate they would want in power. This is typical of the ignorance that surrounds him.
The reason the media is either shutting them out or casting them in a negative light is because they actually represent real change. Not like Blair or Obama’s spin. These men are going to go after the richest in society. The type of people that own and run the media. See where I am going with this? Corbyn is in favour of bringing in a 50% tax rate on those earning £150,000 a year or more. Meanwhile, Sanders said; “The wealthy and large corporations must pay their fair share. As president, I will stop corporations from shifting profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying taxes. I will tax Wall St. speculators who caused millions their jobs, homes, and life savings. I will tell the billionaire class: You can’t have it all while kids in this country go hungry.” Who would argue these two approaches to taxing are unfair?
And that is the main issue here. As long as the media is run by the elites like the Murdoch and Roberts families; politicians running on the fairness ticket will constantly be belittled and ridiculed. Corbyn and Sanders are both against conflict, especially when it can be resolved by diplomacy. This upsets the powerful arms manufacturers as it will hit them in the pocket. They favour the likes of Cameron because he is one of them; part the Eton clique. This is not an endorsement for either Corbyn and Sanders, both definitely have their flaws and it certainly isn’t a war cry for people to get behind left wing ideology. In fact, I don’t believe in right or left wing politics. This is simply a plea to listen to a plurality ideas for democracy’s sake. For your sake.