Years-old speeches 'emerge' with strategic timing
When newspapers tell you something has ’emerged’ or ‘surfaced’ without saying how or from where, it’s best to be on your guard.
A story in yesterday’s Sunday Times is a case in point. Under the headline ‘Corbyn: Tribute to WWI is pointless’, it begins:
“Jeremy Corbyn has said he can’t see the point of commemorating the First World War.
The Labour leader used a speech to the Morning Star, the newspaper founded by the Communist party of Great Britain, to denounce the government’s decision to spend ‘shed loads of money’ on events last year to mark the one hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of the conflict.
The comments emerged just a week before Remembrance Sunday, where Corbyn is due to lay a wreath at the cenotaph in his role as leader of the opposition.”
From this you would get the impression the Labour party leader has made these remarks recently in relation to the coming Remembrance Day ceremony.
What we learn in paragraph five though is that Corbyn’s quotes are taken from a speech made in April 2013 – that’s to say, over two years ago.
Other papers have taken up the story in similar fashion. The Telegraph‘s headline announces ‘Jeremy Corbyn questions why Britain commemorates the First World War’. Note the present tense word ‘questions’. The Daily Express yelps: ‘Jeremy Corbyn says spending ‘shedloads’ on remembering WWI soldiers is POINTLESS’. Again, the words are ‘says’ and ‘is’.
And the Daily Mail‘s story begins:
“Jeremy Corbyn has sparked criticism for saying he cannot see the point of commemorating the First World War, while also denouncing the ‘shedloads of money’ spent on last year’s centenary events.
The Labour leader’s comments have emerged on the eve of next week’s Remembrance Sunday… [etc.]”
While they make clear when the remarks were made, these stories are potentially misleading, as they could give the impression of this being a new intervention by the leader of the Labour party, rather than old remarks made when the prospect of his achieving that post was remote, to say the least.
As with the Sun‘s front page story on the Monday after Corbyn was elected leader, reporting three-year-old comments by Corbyn about ‘abolishing the army’, these WWI stories have the whiff of premeditation.
As it happens, Corbyn was perfectly right to question David Cameron’s pledge to spend £50million marking the war’s centenary in a time of public spending cuts. He was also right to speak against the prevailing wind on the war, with hazy words about ‘sacrifice’ and ‘freedom’ thrown around without going very much deeper.
(Interestingly, the first person to put these reservations in print was Guardian columnist and newly appointed Corbyn spin doctor Seumas Milne. With tedious ideological consistency, Milne lamented how the war ‘laid the ground for the rise of Nazism’ without mentioning the equally disastrous rise of Bolshevism in Russia.)
However, Corbyn’s past remarks and positions are fair game for scrutiny, especially since he presumably still holds these views. (Whether they are Labour party policy or not is another matter.) These stories are really a symptom of Corbyn’s sudden move from backbench freedom to the intense public glare of national politics.
That said, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the press has gone through his old speeches and is saving them up as part of a slow-drip campaign to damage his reputation. This is as much a political act as Corbyn’s decision to make those speeches in the first place.
***
Like this article? Support our work: donate here.
Adam Barnett is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow MediaWatch on Twitter
Sign up for our weekly email by clicking here.
24 Responses to “Do Jeremy Corbyn’s old remarks on WWI deserve press coverage?”
Australian Inquisitor
Firstly, the commemorative events across the country were not paid for by government. They were mostly self-funded with a few bob from local councils and local businesses thrown in. They would have happened anyway, so let’s not credit the government for something they didn’t do.
40 mil went to the IWM vanity project, which was then promptly offset by a cut of 4m to the museum’s operating budget
The rest was spent on sending British kids to the Western Front battlefields and refurbishing HMS Caroline.
Secondly, your argument here is a strawman. The poster didn’t claim that 50m would solve the NHS defecit. He was pointing out the questionable wisdom of allocating money to a cause of secondary importance whilst witholding funds to an organisation that people depend on for their lives.
Thirdly, your argument here is a non sequitur. Your conclusion as to what the poster thinks of people who want to commemorate war dead is not supported by the evidence of his post. You are simply ascribing a position to someone so as to make it easier for to wag your finger at him.
Finally, nobody has mentioned the RBL apart from you, so your puffed-up indignance is a bit misplaced.
I helped to organise a remembrance event in Epsom. About 200 people turned out at 11pm on a school night. The RBL boycotted the event because they wanted one of their guys to make the key speech, not the mayor. Shameful behaviour.
S&A
With your first comment, you are basically admitting that there was a public interest in commemoration, rather than it being a Cameron-inspired shindig. So it’s good to see you violently agreeing with me.
Secondly, ‘Riversideboy’ is whining about the fact that £50m was spent which would – by implication – had been better spent on an NHS that is being ‘starved to death’ or food banks. That is his attempt at an argument, and I am not going to shy away from pointing out how fatuous it is. It’s basically the far left version of all those morons saying that money that should be spent on disabled servicemen is being spent on refugees instead (as if we shouldn’t be supporting both groups_.
Thirdly, it is clear from his remarks that he thinks commemorating the war dead is a waste of time and money. That is as clear as crystal in his comments, and your attempt to imply otherwise is preposterous.
Fourthly, I have done a Google search for the Epsom event you say was ‘shamefully’ boycotted by the RBL, and can see no reference to it anywhere online. So I think you could do with posting some proof before you throw around allegations like that.
Australian Inquisitor
Of course there was a public interest in the Centenary commemorations. There is public interest in all sorts of things. The question isn’t whether a commemoration had the public’s interest, but whether or not public money should be spent on it in such times of enforced austerity and public service cuts and precisely how that money should be spent.
You seemed to be labouring under the illusion that the government paid for things which it didn’t, whilst being blissfully unaware of where £50m actually went (remember your gaffe about it funding the IWM library?)
“Secondly, ‘Riversideboy’ is whining about the fact that £50m was spent which would – by implication – had been better spent on an NHS that is being ‘starved to death’ or food banks”
Correct. It would have been better spent on the NHS. That’s completely different from your previous accusation that he thought 50M would somehow fill the NHS budget deficit. You’re slipping up on your own bile I’m afraid.
“That is his attempt at an argument”
No, that IS his argument. The only “attempts” have been you trying to mis-represent him.
“I am not going to shy away from pointing out how fatuous”
Good for you, but if you accuse someone of something, you generally have to accurately cite them or provide evidence of some kind. I know it’s a chore for you and you’d be much happier churning out rhetoric, but it’s sort of a rule.
“it is clear from his remarks that he thinks commemorating the war dead is a waste of time and money”
He questions the value to society of spending £50m on the Centenary. The idea that he thinks commemorating the war dead is a waste of time and money hasn’t come from him, it’s come from you. You brought it with you so that you could get all huffy about it and use the word “preposterous”
£40m being paid to Norman “TAXES?? I’M OUTTA HERE” Foster does not commemorate the war dead BTW.
This is the event I mentioned:
epsomguardian co uk/ww1/11387806.Hundreds_gather_for_symbolic_lights_out/
You’ll notice nobody from the RBL here. The gentlemen of the press were not informed of the reasons for its absence, but don’t take my word for it, get it from the horse’s mouth: The Epsom RBL can be contacted on 01372720064. You might also try the Mayor of Epsom and Ewell’s secretary on 01372732000
S&A
‘The question isn’t whether a commemoration had the public’s interest, but whether or not public money should be spent on it in such times of enforced austerity and public service cuts and precisely how that money should be spent’.
So despite the fact that the majority of taxpayers are getting involved, it’s not a sign that they see any intrinsic worth in a small portion of their taxes being paid to support it.
Riiiiiight.
‘You seemed to be labouring under the illusion that the government paid for things which it didn’t, whilst being blissfully unaware of where £50m actually went (remember your gaffe about it funding the IWM library?)’
The decision to close the library (which was a stupid one) was made before the influx of funding for the WWI commemorations. It has since been reversed, partly as a result of money being available, but also because of public pressure.
See my point above.
As for ‘Riversideboy’s remark, you first decided to have a go at me for saying that he said the money spent on commemoration was a waste that could have been better spent on the ‘starved’ NHS or food banks (which are funded largely by private charity), and now you are saying that his ‘argument’ is spot on.
Would you care to make your mind up one way or the other?
‘He questions the value to society of spending £50m on the Centenary. The idea that he thinks commemorating the war dead is a waste of time and money hasn’t come from him, it’s come from you’.
There’s a contradiction in there somewhere if you want to look for it …
‘You’ll notice nobody from the RBL here. The gentlemen of the press were not informed of the reasons for its absence, but don’t take my word for it, get it from the horse’s mouth’.
Oh, that’s very convenient.
By the way, the RBL were supporting the ‘Lights Out’ campaign you refer to, but we are led to believe that somehow the Epsom branch threw a fit because the ex-mayor was going to address the crowd. And that didn’t become a press story at all.
I will be sure to contact the Epsom branch to get their side of the story. I will not be entirely surprised if it differs from yours.
Australian Inquisitor
“So despite the fact that the majority of taxpayers are getting involved, it’s not a sign that they see any intrinsic worth in a small portion of their taxes being paid to support it”
Again, you are muddling people’s involvement in, and their enthusiasm for, the various non-government funded Centenary events with what the government actually spent our money on.
Do you have any hard evidence to show that the majority of taxpayers consider £50m better spent on an IWM vanity project than on the NHS or food banks? If so, please share it. If not, then admit that you are only voicing your personal opinion – which you are entitled to just as Riversideboy is entitled to his.
“Riiiiiight.”
Sarcasm doesn’t absolve you from actually having to put forward an argument I’m afraid.
“The decision to close the library (which was a stupid one) was made before the influx of funding for the WWI commemorations”
Wrong again. The IWM announced its intended sell-off of the library in October 2014 as a result of that year’s budget cut by the government. The money for the re-furb was awarded in 2010. This information is all in the public domain y’know…
“As for ‘Riversideboy’s remark, you first decided to have a go at me for saying that he said the money spent on commemoration was a waste that could have been better spent on the ‘starved’ NHS or food banks (which are funded largely by private charity), and now you are saying that his ‘argument’ is spot on.
Would you care to make your mind up one way or the other?”
Nah-ah. Nice try, but a simple re-read of our posts reveals the truth.
Your “Outraged of Milton Keynes” act was based on stuff which wasn’t actually written…was it??
Instead you ascribed a moral position to someone else, so that you could have some fun tearing it apart in your usual bellicose style. Y’all got busted campadre.
“There’s a contradiction in there somewhere if you want to look for it …”
No contradiction at all. Unless you care to specifically point it out (which you can’t)
“Oh, that’s very convenient”
LOL. OK, then don’t do your own due diligence and accept my version of events instead.
Happy?
“By the way, the RBL were supporting the ‘Lights Out’ campaign you refer to”
Probably. But they still changed their mind about attending a couple of days beforehand.
“we are led to believe that somehow the Epsom branch threw a fit because the ex-mayor was going to address the crowd. And that didn’t become a press story at all.”
And again you get the key facts wrong. Do you have short attention span?
The Epsom RBL threw a hissy fit because the key speech was not going to be given by a Legion member, not because the mayor was going to address the crowd. The RBL claimed intellectual property rights on the poppy motif in 2000 and this particular bunch presumably see that as the right to have dibs on any event which uses it. It was all rather undignified and I presume neither party wanted to publicise that sort of shameful behavior.
“I will be sure to contact the Epsom branch to get their side of the story. I will not be entirely surprised if it differs from yours.”
You do that. Make sure you speak to E&E mayor’s office as well.