5 ms·
There are interesting bits in this article, but on the whole it is not well written and clearly slanted. For example, section about Guardian's reporting on Corb
by samastur 7y ago
There are interesting bits in this article, but on the whole it is not well written and clearly slanted. For example, section about Guardian's reporting on Corbyn has 8 long paragraphs about other media reports like it has any bearing on Guardian's.
I don't like much of Guardian's reporting, but it is difficult to evaluate how much credence to give to an article that is also problematic.
- k1m 7y agoI followed the Guardian's reporting on Corbyn. It was clearly aiming to damage him on the basis of very flimsy evidence. I worked on this page compiling a list of Guardian articles showing the extent the Guardian had gone to to paint Corbyn and Labour as antisemitic. https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/antisemitism/ https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/antisemitism/ Now if the charges were true, you'd think it would continue to be a problem, especially now that a general election is getting so much closer. As Media Lens pointed out recently, it seems the media has lost interest in that particular attack: https://twitter.com/medialens/status/1169157686300217345 https://twitter.com/medialens/status/1169157686300217345 - which would suggest there wasn't much to it in the first place.
- toyg 7y agoGuardian editors have definitely decided Corbyn is the lesser evil, most of the hypercritical coverage is gone. The first year it was a non-stop barrage. The rest of the press is still mostly at it, though.
- shellac 7y agoI think it was aimed at getting him to stop excusing antisemites, which is an embarrassment. It's unclear what you think those links demonstrate, other than many writers thought that too. "So, @georgegalloway was right" is one of nature's warning signs.