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?”
S&A
I think I’m dealing with a troll here. Either that, or someone who is hopelessly confused.
First you complain about taxpayer’s money being spent on commemoration, then you say that the amount of money the Tories spent on the centenary is not what it’s cracked up to be.
Then you try and lecture me about misrepresenting another posters’ views, and follow that by saying that you agree with them fully. You cap that by simultaneously admitting and denying that in the main Joe and Joanna Public wanted to commemorate the centenary of the WWI (and cap that all by claiming that you helped organise your own part in the process).
All in all, more flipflops than you can find by the side of a hotel swimming pool, and more nitpicking than you can see in a bonobo enclosure at the zoo.
As for your account of the supposed ‘boycott’ by Epson RBL, I think we can judge the veracity of this given that you’ve got no evidence, and that this one branch chose to snub a commemorative event that it was this charity’s national policy to back just because they couldn’t provide the main speaker. We are also supposed to assume that the reporter covering the event didn’t ask ‘Hey, where are the RBL?’, and that no one from the ex-mayor’s party sought to tell them.
Maybe you’re relaying this story in good faith, but it stinks of BS to me. Be assured I will check up on it.
As for your snide remark about the RBL copyrighting the poppy, the main reason why that has been done is to stop it being used as a symbol by the far right. The Legion has after all already had run-ins with UKIP about it (they’ve used it on their electoral material) and also Britain First. I’m assuming that even you would think it fair do’s to stop extremists from misusing this symbol.
Australian Inquisitor
I’m guessing that relentlessly mis-representing arguments is your M.O?
“First you complain about taxpayer’s money being spent on commemoration”
Sigh…once again….the commemorations weren’t paid for by the taxpayer and the Centenary budget didn’t go on commemoration – it went on refurbing a museum, a ship and sending some kids to Belgium for the weekend. I thought we’d covered that already.
“then you say that the amount of money the Tories spent on the centenary is not what it’s cracked up to be”
Nope. That’s just something else you’ve invented.
“Then you try and lecture me about misrepresenting another posters’ views”
Yup, cos that’s exactly what you did.
“and follow that by saying that you agree with them fully”
Yup. The NHS and food banks are more deserving of money than museums and ships – in my opinion.
“You cap that by simultaneously admitting and denying that in the main Joe and Joanna Public wanted to commemorate the centenary of the WWI”
Where did I deny that Joe Public wanted to commemorate WW1?
Try an actual quote for a change…
“and cap that all by claiming that you helped organise your own part in the process”
Which I did. Irritating for you that a loony leftie did such a thing, but there ya go…
“more nitpicking than you can see in a bonobo enclosure at the zoo”
I don’t consider calling you out on bald-faced lies to be nitpicking, but maybe you’re more precious than I am.
“I think we can judge the veracity of this given that you’ve got no evidence”
I thought you were going to call them to verify my claims?
Did their answer not fit with what you wanted to hear then??
“and that this one branch chose to snub a commemorative event that it was this charity’s national policy to back just because they couldn’t provide the main speaker”
Yup. Pretty much. And that’s coming from someone with many friends in the Legion and who has collected for them, for Combat Stress and for ABF numerous times.
“We are also supposed to assume that the reporter covering the event didn’t ask ‘Hey, where are the RBL?”
Why don’t you ask the local rag about it?
“and that no one from the ex-mayor’s party sought to tell them”
Because showing a couple of ex-servicemen up to be self serving dicks at an event commemorating fallen soldiers of WW1 isn’t a very nice thing to do maybe?
“As for your snide remark about the RBL copyrighting the poppy, the main reason why that has been done is to stop it being used as a symbol by the far right.”
That’s you isn’t it???
S&A
I emailed the secretary of the Mayor of E and E last night about your allegations. Until I get a reply, I will not engage with your trolling and dissembling.
Aside from the fact that your arguments keep changing with each post, I think I should add here that there is something rather twisted about your remarks (particularly that snide little aside about the RBL copywriting the poppy).
You remind me very much of that ‘Daily Mail’ journalist who tried to smear the Trussell Trust last year. The politics may differ, but your motives stay the same.
Australian Inquisitor
My arguments have remained constant throughout.
The fact that you have trouble understanding things is not my problem.
You accidentally or intentionally get the wrong end of the stick about 50% of the time, which is not a good number if you want to try your luck debating outside of your preferred online echo chambers.
As with so many of you hard-charging, “call a spade a spade” types, your overly sensitive nature is noted.
The RBL did copyright the red poppy in 2000. That’s a documented point of fact. If you think that stating incontrovertible facts is “snide”, then maybe you’d be happier elsewhere?