[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Corbyn Defied Media Rules by Linking UK Wars to Terrorism
Stuart Levy
stuartnlevy at gmail.com
Thu Jun 29 16:44:07 UTC 2017
Good comments as ever from FAIR. Where in the US media did we hear
Jeremy Corbyn linking the UK's participation in the war-on-terror
nonsense, to the recent acts of terror in the UK?
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Corbyn Defied Media Rules by Linking UK Wars to Terrorism
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:14:53 +0000
From: FAIR <fair at fair.org>
Reply-To: FAIR <fair at fair.org>
To: stuartnlevy at gmail.com
Corbyn Defied Media Rules by Linking UK Wars to Terrorism
Is this email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser
<http://us10.campaign-archive1.com/?e=690cba8393&u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=d75abdd10c>.
<http://fair.us10.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=626ef2a17c&e=690cba8393>
Corbyn Defied Media Rules by Linking UK Wars to Terrorism
When a terrorist killed 22 at a May 22 concert filled with young people
in England’s Manchester, most journalists—especially US ones—assumed it
would help the struggling Conservative Party and its standard-bearer,
Prime Minister Theresa May, win the snap election she had called for
June 8, just 17 days ahead.
NYT: Manchester Bombing Shifts Political Narrative as U.K. Election
Looms
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=b57f7ceffc&e=690cba8393>
/The *New York Times* (5/24/17
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=d88f3c1116&e=690cba8393>)
thought the Manchester bombing would let Teresa May “reassert herself as
Britain’s reassuring grown-up, a trusted pair of hands on security
issues — especially in contrast with her main rival, the Labour leader
Jeremy Corbyn.”/
That is, after all, the conventional wisdom: In times of crisis, like a
terror attack, the public looks to its leaders for tough talk and
dramatic action. *New York Times* correspondent Steven Erlanger
(5/24/17)
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=f11226e983&e=690cba8393>,
noting that May’s “easy glide” to re-election had run into trouble prior
to the bombing, wrote an article on how the attack “Shifts Political
Narrative as UK Election Looms”:
If the Manchester bombing was a horrible tragedy for Britain, it was
a political boon, however unwanted, for Prime Minister Theresa May.
Monday’s terrorist attack has changed the narrative of Britain’s
election, just two weeks away — and in her favor. As the incumbent
prime minister, Mrs. May inevitably speaks both to and for the
nation from 10 Downing Street. And having been home secretary for
six years before becoming prime minister, she is knowledgeable and
comfortable with the issues of security, policing and terrorism.
Erlanger went on to report that May’s opponent, leftist Labour leader
Jeremy Corbyn, was seen to have a “weakness” on security, citing his
“old sympathies with Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army.” Erlanger
quoted a historian’s view that “there can only be more questions” for
Corbyn after the bombing, which opened him to attacks from right-wing
media for being “soft on terror.”
But Corbyn took a bold and unusual stand after the Manchester horror. On
March 26, just four days after the suicide bombing, he gave a speech on
foreign policy and terrorism that criticized May’s role as home
secretary under former PM David Cameron. Noting that she had overseen
cuts in public safety funding that had furloughed 20,000 police
officers, Corbyn said, “You cannot protect the public on the cheap.”
Democracy Now!: U.K. Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn: The War on Terror Is
Not Working
<http://fair.us10.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=3d21436c10&e=690cba8393>
/Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-war speech made headlines on *Democracy Now!* and
*Common Dreams*, but not in the *New York Times*./
More importantly, Corbyn went on to say, “We must be brave enough to
admit the war on terror is simply not working.” A life-long anti-war
activist and critic of British participation in US-led wars, even under
his own party’s leaders, Corbyn charged that British interventions,
particularly in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, had made the country
less rather than more safe, saying:
Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and
security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our
government has supported or fought in other countries, such as
Libya, and terrorism here at home.
While Corbyn’s dramatic words were widely reported in the British media,
mostly in the context of scathing criticism, one struggled to find them
mentioned in the US media—especially on the TV news—despite the heavy
attention being paid to the bombing, and to a later truck attack on
London Bridge. Apparently, when it comes to the US news media, talking
about such notions is something to be left to alternative outlets like
*Common Dreams* (5/26/17
<http://fair.us10.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=4f7b5fd140&e=690cba8393>)
and *Democracy Now!* (5/26/17
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=18c6b4cddb&e=690cba8393>),
and to the more radical elements of the US peace movement.
Although it’s hard to imagine a presidential or congressional candidate
of either major US party making a similar speech following a terror
attack, Corbyn’s views have been a non-story in the view of most
American news editors.
A*USA Today* piece (5/26/17
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=5f486f8540&e=690cba8393>)
had a one-paragraph preview of Corbyn’s speech, making sure to mention
that his “party is expected to perform poorly in the June 8 vote.”
*Bloomberg News* (5/26/17
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=9fd5e17ad9&e=690cba8393>)
had a longer report on Corbyn’s speech, though it gave the last word to
Conservative critics who said that Corbyn came from “an extreme and
ideological world that is too quick to make excuses for the actions of
our enemies and too willing to oppose the measures and people that keep
us safe”—though polling found the British public largely in agreement
<http://fair.us10.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=ddf5de0314&e=690cba8393>
with his view that the “War on Terror” had made them less safe.
Only the *Washington Post* (5/27/17)
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=9b6076d87a&e=690cba8393>
suggested the possibility that Corbyn might benefit by linking the
Manchester terror bombing to British policies in the Middle East, at
least if his intention was to “galvanize his base.” In an article
headlined “Manchester Bombing Makes Terrorism Central Campaign Issue in
June Elections,” *Post* correspondents Karla Adam and Michael Birnbaum
quoted Tim Bale, a politics professor at Queen Mary University in
London. He said while the Corbyn speech would predictably outrage
Conservatives, “If his aim is to mobilize his core left liberal vote,
then it could work,” adding, “Now, how that will play with the majority
of voters is another matter.”
Katie Hopkins on Twitter
<http://fair.us10.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=585f97816f&e=690cba8393>
/The expert the *New York Times* turned to for a take on Corbyn’s speech./
As for the *New York Times*, it largely ignored Corbyn’s remarkable
speech, though one article (5/26/17
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=aa1b1cf817&e=690cba8393>)
cited his quote about security officials seeing a link between UK
military actions and domestic terror attacks. (The *Times* then cited
British Defense Minister Michael Fallon retorting that his speech showed
Corbyn was “unfit to be prime minister.”) There was also a second-hand
reference the same day: An article (5/26/17
<http://fair.us10.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=2f264cf3e8&e=690cba8393>)
about right-wing *Daily Mail* columnist Katie Hopkins quoted her saying
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=ce5c86101f&e=690cba8393>
Corbyn had given a “rancid speech” calling the war on terror a “failure.”
That was it. Although the *Times*’ bureau in London surely must have
noticed after the speech in question that Corbyn and his Labour Party
continued their rise in the polls, they filed no article discussing the
phenomenon or the speech itself.
In “Theresa May Doesn’t Crack and Jeremy Corbyn Keeps His Cool in UK
Debate,”(5/29/17)
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=f60999a4ce&e=690cba8393>,
the *Times*’ Erlanger and colleague Stephen Castle reported on a
pseudo-debate between May and Corbyn. (May had refused to share the
stage with Corbyn, so each candidate instead faced questions alone with
the moderator.) The two journalists wrote only that Corbyn in the debate
was “challenged over his comment that the war on terror was ‘not
working,’” failing to note that that line had been not a “comment” but
rather part of a major foreign policy speech analyzing the roots of
terrorism in the country, and how to combat it.
When the voting was over, US media had to report the obvious: that
Corbyn and Labour, though failing to best May and the Conservatives, had
actually come out ahead in the election, defying pundit predictions to
gain 32 seats and knocking the Conservatives out of a majority in
Parliament. As the *Times* story’s headline read (6/9/17
<http://fair.us10.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=bbc16bff4a&e=690cba8393>):
“Jeremy Corbyn Lost UK Election, but Is Still Its Biggest Winner.”
But like most of the US media coverage in that and succeeding days,
*Times* journalists Castle and Katrin Bennhold attributed Corbyn’s
success to his being a better, more people-friendly campaigner than the
“wooden, robotic” May, to his “Sanders-like” appeal to young voters, and
to his party’s socialist manifesto, which called for better funding for
the National Health Service, re-nationalization of public transit and
free college tuition, among other measures. (Of course, before the
election, the *Times*‘ pages were describing this same manifesto as a
“proto-Marxist program” that would doom Labour to the political
wilderness—*New York Times*, 6/3/17
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=2755d01e42&e=690cba8393>;
*FAIR.org*, 6/8/17
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=ca25a17ac2&e=690cba8393>.)
No doubt Corbyn’s personality and domestic policies were factors in his
strong electoral performance, but there’s also no doubt that his
contrarian stand on terrorism, laying much of the blame on Britain’s
militarist foreign policy and intervention in Middle East conflicts, was
critical. Yet this got no mention at all.
Writing for the news site *Nation of Change* (6/25/17
<http://fair.us10.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=f46e664d2d&e=690cba8393>),
Canadian journalist Derek Royden ventured to say what no journalist in
corporate US media has:
Unlike most of the leaders of major Western political parties,
Jeremy Corbyn chose to be honest rather than treating citizens like
children, and to the surprise of many he gained support. In the end,
his party picked up 32 seats and a larger “government in waiting”
role in a hung parliament. It also turned out that the Labor leader
was correct in pointing to the war in Libya as a more important
factor than the concerns articulated by May [about excessive
internet freedom and too much concern for human rights].
Spaniards demonstrating against war and terrorism (cc photo:
kippelboy/Wikimedia)
<http://fair.us10.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=90974787ec&e=690cba8393>
/In Spain, the public responded to a terror attack by rejecting the
policies that promote terrorism. (cc photo: kippelboy/Wikimedia)/
This isn’t the first time voters have defied the conventional wisdom
about how they are supposed to respond to crises. After the Pulse
nightclub attack in Orlando in June 2016, *NPR* “counterterrorism
correspondent” Dina Temple-Raston speculated that the attack might
affect the US elections, since, she said, after a major bombing in
Madrid just before the 2004 elections, “the more conservative candidate
ended up winning.”
The problem with this analysis? The conservative People’s Party actually
lost that election to the Socialists, who had campaigned on a platform
of withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq (*FAIR.org*,6/15/16
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=3aea69c9fa&e=690cba8393>).
/Read the original post here
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=9d02b3a9cc&e=690cba8393>./
FAIR's Website
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=4019fad2ae&e=690cba8393>
FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=ac557e2d85&e=690cba8393>.
Follow on Twitter <Twitter%20Account%20not%20yet%20Authorized> | Friend
on Facebook <#> | Forward to a Friend
<http://us10.forward-to-friend2.com/forward?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=d75abdd10c&e=690cba8393>
/Copyright © 2017 Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, All rights reserved./
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.
*Our mailing address is:*
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001
Add us to your address book
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/vcard?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=8cf7adc7d2>
unsubscribe from this list
<http://fair.us10.list-manage2.com/unsubscribe?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=8cf7adc7d2&e=690cba8393&c=d75abdd10c>
| update subscription preferences
<http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/profile?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=8cf7adc7d2&e=690cba8393>
| view email in browser
<http://us10.campaign-archive1.com/?e=690cba8393&u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=d75abdd10c>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20170629/5e4dab2b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list