Tabloid press

[ColinL]

I have not posted this before but given the issue of 'laying wreaths for terrorists', it is appropriate to do so. This is by a Jewish American academic, not known for being left wing by European standards

"One particular slander that perfectly captures the nature of the anti-Corbyn operation involves the laying of a wreath at a Tunisian cemetery in 2014 for dozens of victims of an Israeli bombing. In late September 1985, three Israeli tourists were murdered in Larnaca, Cyprus. On October 1, Israel “retaliated” by bombing  PLO headquarters in Tunis, killing about 72, most of whom were laid to rest in a nearby cemetery. Condemnation poured in from all over the globe against armed aggression with a civilian toll, with the sole exception of the Reagan Administration, which initially defended the bombardment as “legitimate” retaliation for the Larnaca murders. Within a few weeks, even the U.S. felt compelled to abandon its position and joined the worldwide chorus of denunciation, calling it a terrorist attack.

The 2014 ceremony at the cemetery was primarily intended to honor the dozens of innocent victims of this mass murder. Also buried nearby were two Palestinian victims of Israeli assassination in Paris in the early 90’s. Israel suspected one or both of these men of involvement in the planning of the 1972 Munich Olympics attack on Israeli athletes and coaches.

Of course, Corbyn has never voiced approval for the Munich operation, either at Tunis in 2014 or at any other time or place. There was no contemporaneous outcry regarding his appearance there, and although he was not yet Labour Party leader, he was a prominent, long-standing MP. Four years later, with Corbyn a legitimate contender for Prime Minister, the wholly manufactured furor suddenly erupted.

A Daily Mail headline blared: “Corbyn’s wreath at Munich terrorists’ graves”. On this side of the Atlantic, Bari Weiss wrung her hands in exasperation that Corbyn had “paid respects at the memorial of the Palestinian perpetrators of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre.”  Alan Dershowitz went even further, falsely accusing Corbyn of “visit[ing] and prais[ing] the terrorists who murdered Israeli athletes and coaches.”

With all the vilification of Corbyn for his (fabricated) support for international terrorism, the focus was solely on the two Palestinian assassination victims supposedly connected to Munich. No one bothered to revisit Israel’s massacre of 72 other human beings in Tunis in retaliation for the murder of three of its citizens in Cyprus.

Nor was the Tunis mass murder terror-bombing an isolated event. Israel has frequently exacted “justice” for the deaths of its own by some “Arabs” by killing a far greater number of other “Arabs.” Following the murder of three Israelis in October 1953, an IDF elite unit commanded by Ariel Sharon under orders from David Ben-Gurion murdered 69 innocent civilians in the middle of the night in Qibya, Jordan. Following the 1972 Munich Olympics killings of 11 Israelis, the IDF bombed Palestinian refugee camps in southern Lebanon and Syria, killing hundreds of residents. Israel’s bombings and invasions of Lebanon in 1982, 1993, 1996 and 2006 and Gaza in 2009, 2012 and 2014 all were styled as revenge killings for violence or threats of violence against Israel. Many thousands met their death for the capital crime of Breathing While Arab.

Israel and its supporters insist that its “reprisal” killings are legitimate "


All the Mail could come up witg was a picture and then create a fictitional story around it.

[Richard]

The Free Press are 'allowed' to run stories that may well be politically biased or designed to increase sales, often by promoting any number of prejudicial commentaries, interviews and debates.
The grey area is that they circulate widely and openly and influence the general public, unless or until challenged. Attacks on public figures such as politicians may be difficult to oppose in general, i.e. Corbyn is a Marxist and a terrorist sympathiser who supports the Arab cause and is antisemitic.
For that reason a Judge may ask juries to follow a simple rule - that they must deliver a verdict on a defendant based on the evidence heard in court alone.
A trial may be abandoned if a Press report is deemed to have prejudiced the jury.
Once information of any nature is disclosed publicly there is no cure to the prejudicial effect it may have on a jury.
Pre-Trial Press coverage as well as that 'seen' during a trial may be prejudicial and a jury may be asked to avoid viewing or hearing any form of media coverage that may influence their decision-making.
Some U.S. trials are moved to areas outside the influence of media coverage altogether.

[cbe]

Yes newspapers lie (almost as much as the BBC ) but what about photographs -
perhaps they're all doctored?
There are dozens - but I'm sure that they are all innocent.

[ColinL]

Has he ever denied meeting Sinn Fein a legitimate and perfectly lawful Irish political party?
No.
Did you know they actually contested elections !
In fact he was known for opening up channels of communication, it does not mean what you would like.
Stop adding 2 plus 2 and trying to make 5, it won't wash except for the hard of thinking

[ColinL]

It was not worth all your effort to locate the pictures but perhaps you have them filed in your hate figure archive.

I well remember Thatcher's little escapade of banning us Brits from hearing Sinn Fein voices so the broadcasters managed to get speakers with exactly the same voice and intonation as Adams and McGuiness, such that people could not tell the difference. That was playing to the gallery. Pure humbug whilst MPs here were trying to open up channels to end the violence.

[cbe]

Only Colin and Jeremy in the entire country are unaware that Adams and McGuinness were prominent and active members of the IRA. Ah but it's not been prooooooved in court so it cannot be the case.

[ColinL]

Why do you feel the need to put lots of 'ooooooos' in a word?

You can believe what you wish. A court is where things tend to be tested which is presumably why nothing has been done to prosecute the people identified.

Now do you have anything constructive to add to the debate about deliberately false stories in the press or do you only do negative things?

[Richard]

Is it a case of the Press deliberately publishing false stories (Fake News)?
Did the publisher in this U.K. case not really believe they were publishing in the public interest after the exposure of Muslim CSE gangs in other tabloids?
They got it wrong but was it deliberate or malicious?
I don't know and also the Press have been campaigning for or against everyday issues such as Brexit referendum and formulated a litany of negative allegations against Corbyn.
Corbyn could have sued? Or are public figures unable to challenge the Press who lie a lot and distort the truth with biased coverage?

[ColinL]

cbe, in Britain we have what is known as the rule of law that derives from Magna Carta. We do not have the tyranny of the masses where the loudest and biggest bully gets to decide what is right and wrong. The latter system seems to be the one you prefer as you claim to speak for the majority of the population , whereas you are in fact an angry old person unable to accept that you could be wrong, will not debate fact but continue to berate others.

It is an apposite time that you should raise your head today, directly after the self proclaimed 'leader' of tenants in a Norwich block of flats decided that all the residents require that only English is spoken. No consultation, no evidence, they have just decided. Are you that person? It is even better given that they are unable to place punctuation in simple written English. I wonder if you/they know that Mrs Windor's ( aka Mrs Saxe Coburg Gotha) ancestor, Georgie 1, did not speak the language, hardly ever visited and disliked the country!

[ColinL]

Richard, clearly in the instance where the newspaper cut half of a photo scene away, it can not have been other than deliberate (The Cenotaph). The photo of the wreath laying was documented at the time as to what was happening as was described above. They chose to write an entirely different narrative than the original. Again that cannot have been an error. Corbyn could have sued ( he did to a Tory MP) but I expect he did not want to get embroiled in interminable legal proceedings. The press have deep pockets, he does not. Consider the recent libel of the council employee. Estimated legal costs £1 million

Yes errors and mistakes happen and are dealt with but most of the instances appear malicious