|
Corbyn
Mar 5, 2017 22:31:09 GMT
Post by marner93 on Mar 5, 2017 22:31:09 GMT
|
|
|
Corbyn
Mar 6, 2017 12:40:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by Zvonimir Boban on Mar 6, 2017 12:40:21 GMT
Wrong but never let facts get in the way of a good old fashioned witchhunt.
|
|
|
Corbyn
Mar 6, 2017 16:32:59 GMT
Post by Derry Blue on Mar 6, 2017 16:32:59 GMT
Wrong but never let facts get in the way of a good old fashioned witchhunt. I'm no fan of JC, but what a non-story. Pathetic journalism (in fact it demeans the word journalism), better called muck-raking.
|
|
|
Post by Firestick Frank on Mar 6, 2017 20:17:30 GMT
Jeremy Corbyn filled in his tax return perfectly correctly. He then published it, being transparent, unlike the Tories. Someone from Sky News misread the return, and thought he hadn't declared his "leader of the opposition" extra salary, because it wasn't included under "Salary". But actually they were wrong. He had included it, correctly, under "Public Office". His office pointed out that this is fake news and that the tax return is correct, but (surprise, surprise) for some time the whole MSM completely ignored them and have continued to go with the smear like batshit crazy - presumably seeing it as yet another chance to smear Corbyn, and also a good distraction from all the important things going on (such as John McDonnell's excellent policy announcements, the NHS march, and the refusal of Philip Hammond and the other Tory front-benchers to publish their tax returns).
This is yet another example of the press's ongoing tendency to spend huge amounts of time and energy trying to find the slightest opportunity to smear Corbyn, while at the same time protecting the Tories from any scrutiny whatsoever. The owners of the media companies that have attempted to cast doubt over this transparent and accurate tax return are of course among those who could stand to lose from the tax transparency policy Corbyn and McDonnell promote.
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Mar 6, 2017 22:22:53 GMT
The problem is that it doesn't matter how bad or inaccurate the journalism is when 59% of articles on social media are shared by people who never read any further than the headline. It's not just social media though, those big imposing, serif font headlines on the Mail and the Express, usually about migrants or how terrible the NHS is, how much opinion do they shape, even among people who don't buy or read the paper? Wikipedia has has recently advised that the Mail shouldn't be classed as a reputable source, and the UN human rights chief has said our government needs to do more about tabloid hate speech. I'm hoping the net is closing on some of these nasty papers with agendas and the younger generation is going to be a bit more clued up and rejecting of them than their older counterparts generally appear to be.
|
|