I intended to write on Labour and upcoming vote by parliament on article 50.
Instead, I am writing again on biased-journalism, because of one-sided trash they call news these days.
Is it only me, or have you noticed it as well?
Read following links and you will know what I mean:
- Corbyn office sabotaged EU remain Campaign, by BBC in-house Corbyn-hater and political fabricator Laura Kuenssberg – against who, incidentally, even the regulator BBC Trust ruled that she inaccurately represented Corbyn.
- YouGov on “How badly is Jeremy Corbyn doing?”
- The Telegraph header on Jeremy backs down on vow to force Labour MPs to vote in favour of Brexit.
- BBC on Corbyn not changed his mind on immigration.
Do you hear the underlying tone?
In all cases, they use as many negative adjectives as possible with “Labour” and “Corbyn” in the same sentence.
Ignore the politics and political reasoning for time being; we can discuss it later.
Instead, let’s check the syntax and attitude.
Take for example “Corbyn sabotaged EU Remain”. Had they said either “Corbyn supports Brexit” or “Labour supports Remain” it would have given a clearer message. Also, it would have brought readers on at least one side of the topic closer to Labour.
Read the other article on Corbyn not his changed mind on immigration. Corbyn clearly states that immigration to the UK is not too high and migrants play a valuable role in the society. In next statement BBC says “Labour was not wedded to freedom of movement”.
Why cannot Laura and BBC use their backbones, stand straight and say clearly that Corbyn supports controlled immigration?
Because their backbones were long ago surrendered to the grand-alliance of Corbyn haters.
Yet another article in Telegraph: Jeremy backs down on vow to force Labour MPs to vote in favour of Brexit.
Wow! How many negatives in just one header!
Does it still clearly explain in which way Labour wants its MPs to vote?
No, that message is obscured.
This is what the pen-pushers and Labour-haters want to achieve. Create utter confusion regarding the stands of Labour and Corbyn and murk the message.
By using “no”, “not”, “force” and other negative remarks, they purposefully alienate Labour and Corbyn from either side of the argument.
Let me try – “Media, political parties and their trash-writers use manipulative language in their venomous uttering against Corbyn”.
See, I too have learned that way of writing!
Blame the propagandists!
Lost the mood to write on the topic I intended to; will come back later on Labour and Article50.
Till then, have a read on an earlier post on journalism.