The media’s failure to understand Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/06/media-failure-to-understand-jeremy-corbyn-appeal

Version 0 of 1.

I would like to thank Gaby Hinsliff for writing her article in Saturday’s Guardian (The media don’t hate Jeremy Corbyn. It’s a lot more complicated than that, 4 June) and at least starting a conversation about the relationship between Jeremy Corbyn, his supporters and the media.

I was present at Corbyn’s speech last Thursday. I went because I wanted to hear what he had to say and to judge for myself whether he was being characterised fairly by the media. He clearly is not. What got reported was not what he said about remaining in and reforming the EU, but audience reaction to Laura Kuenssberg. Some people hissed. I did not, and I don’t support it as a form of communication. However, what the media have been doing is far worse than hissing and booing; they have been sneering, dismissive and contemptuous of someone who won a clear mandate to lead.

Gaby Hinsliff says journalists have failed to understand Corbyn and his support. I agree. I rejoined the Labour party to vote for him because he was the only anti-austerity candidate. The fact that he is not a slick and polished performer is not a problem – it is a welcome relief after the “charisma” of Blair. I am not a “Corbynista” – whatever that is – and am not interested in a cult of personality. For me it is much more serious – about people’s lives, their future, and the opportunity to be involved in the democratic process which his candidacy offered.

Hinsliff talks about reporters’ “instinctive bias towards winners” and seems to have decided that Corbyn is not one – despite the fact that he won the leadership contest against the odds. “Instinctive” suggests some kind of journalistic gut feeling, but it is a bias towards established power elites, internalised as “natural”. I suppose I would be one of those “nice, normal people” she mentions who must have voted for Corbyn. I did so because it seemed the best chance for a leftwing alternative, a daunting task for anyone because some of the most virulent opposition comes from within the Labour party itself, particularly from the MPs. Having been an ex-member for decades, I am once again an active supporter; I canvassed for Sadiq Khan recently, not so much for him, but in a reaction to the negativity and smears directed against him. So, as Hinsliff says, it is complex; but the press would do well to use their intelligence rather than their instinct to reflect the complexity and the unpredictability of politics.Jo MillettLondon

• Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised for keeping a low profile in the remain campaign. Last Thursday, your front page led with comments made by GMB leader Tim Roache and included short, selected quotes from the speech Corbyn was due to make that day (Corbyn urged to speak up on immigration, 2 June). I scoured Friday’s paper for the follow-up report and found a few column inches on your double-page EU referendum spread, which was otherwise dominated by David Cameron’s appearance on Sky News. Even this almost nonexistent coverage of the Corbyn speech concentrated exclusively on the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg (plus photo) being hissed when she asked him a question (Labour boos for Kuenssberg, 3 June). It’s little wonder that the public is allegedly unsure what the Labour party’s position is on the referendum given the failure to take an interest in a speech by the Labour leader unless a negative slant can be put on it. Stronger in Europe may want Jeremy Corbyn’s “voice to be heard” but the press obviously have other ideas.Karen BarrattWinchester

• When Tony Blair says “I’m not sure I fully understand politics right now” and Gaby Hinsliff’s colleagues think that Corbyn’s election “made no sense”, perhaps they weren’t listening closely enough. Didn’t they hear the crash of 2008; the demonisation of those who did least to cause this; the unjust enrichment of the already super-rich? All the way back to the waste of North Sea oil; the wrecking of UK manufacturing, coal and steel; the failed privatisations; the corrupt practices and failures to deliver in contracted-out services; the failure to build houses and the cruelties of the private rental sector; the concentration of power and the democratic deficit; the blind obsession with “the market” and all the other indignities inflicted on the long-suffering mass of ordinary people in this country. It is quite astonishing that those professionally involved in politics should be so deaf. It is no wonder that people seek solutions in extremes when the mainstream has so copiously failed.Roy BoffyWalsall

• Gaby Hinsliff writes: “Journalists are not out to destroy Corbyn because he threatens to bring down the neoliberal elite, or because they’re all Tories, or because they live in a bubble of groupthink”. Which begs the question: why are they out to destroy him then?Bruce PaleyCastle Morris, Pembrokeshire

• Gaby Hinsliff considers that “for every shrill social media warrior there are dozens of nice, normal people who backed Corbyn” who should be asked why they did. Since we consider that we fit this characterisation, may we attempt to answer this query?

There seems to be an assumption by the media that the rush to join Labour in order to vote for Corbyn was mainly by the young and politically ignorant part of electorate, simply motivated by the novelty and contrast to the usual Labour voices. Has anyone tried to estimate what proportion of the newer Labour membership consists of those, like us, who abandoned a long-standing membership over the Blairite New Labour years from despair over the drift towards the uncritical acceptance of neoliberalism (the last straw often the invasion of Iraq)? Some of us saw a light at the end of the tunnel with Ed Miliband’s leadership, and rejoined over that period, but evidently the light was too far away.

We understood why the postwar enthusiasm for political change was eventually unable to survive the rationing and austerity of those difficult years, despite the good things that had been achieved: the setting up of the NHS, the repair of war-damaged houses and the building of new ones, and introducing secondary education for all, for instance. We remember our regret at the time that (some of?) the trade unions rejected the opportunity to take part in the running of the newly nationalised industries, preferring to maintain their distance from the management in defence of the workers.

Many aspects of the economy benefited from the changes that ensued in the 1950s. It takes a long time for the culture of a political party to change, and the birth of New Labour was necessary before Labour again had a substantial period of government. But again, the leadership of the party has become fixated on policies that were necessary for the period of transition, and they are now not sufficiently alert to the need to apply curbs on the excesses of neoliberalism.

We are appalled by the way the parliamentary party has turned against the overwhelming membership of the party. Corbyn does not come across as a wild revolutionary in his weekly email reports, but rather as a cool observer of what needs to be done to improve life and the economy in Britain today. Perhaps what we are looking for is a combination of his talents with the ability of an Obama to inspire the electorate.

It is only fair to confess that we are both economics graduates (1950 vintage) and great admirers of Keynes, and of Piketty, though by no means practising economists. Keynes knew what needed to be done when the country is trapped in austerity and hovering on the brink of depression. Even the IMF has seen that light.Ailsa LandEmeritus professor, LSEFrank LandEmeritus professor, LSE

• Why did Corbyn get elected to lead Labour? Gaby Hinsliff says that journalists “rarely … see the view from inside the camp”. Within my own constituency party many activists supported Corbyn. They turned their backs on Blair/Brown mainly because they were sick of seeing a public battle between two party leaders and their gangs. Members were equally reluctant to promote any leading member of the Miliband frontbench, who had tamely and inexplicably acquiesced in the Cameron-Osborne lie about a car crash, what Paul Krugman has called “the nonsensical proposition that [Labour’s] supposed fiscal irresponsibility caused the crisis of 2008-2009” (The austerity delusion, 29 April 2015). Miliband’s weak-kneed team allowed this blatant falsehood to become a universally accepted truth. None of them could be rewarded.

For Labour supporters Corbyn’s main qualification was that he was untainted. That’s why so many Labour MPs resent his election, a sentiment understandably reflected in the media.David ButlerLondon

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com