Unfortunately this is not quite an 'analysis' of any sort. It is riddled with baseless assumptions and inaccuracy that should not have even passed the editorial threshold for an opinion piece...
theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
For a start, the journalist's description of the leaked report as 'rambling' betrays a barely disguised slant. And the suggestion that it was leaked to Novara Media is just wrong (it was first leaked to Sky News)...
But above all, the assertion that there is "no proof" of sabotage is plainly absurd. The report documents conversations between former staffers in May 17 that unequivocally reference "a secret key seats team" that was set up and intended to be kept secret from the leadership...
There is nothing 'circumstantial' or out of context about this. It is not just evidence of attempted sabotage, it is hard evidence of conspiracy.
It's remarkable how easily the Guardian has once again bought in to a demonstrably false narrative. As for why...
It's remarkable how easily the Guardian has once again bought in to a demonstrably false narrative. As for why...
I think there are probably myriad reasons not necessarily reducible to straightforward biased or lazy journalism. One problem might be not so much insufficient evidence of sabotage but overwhelming evidence...
To acknowledge that - or even look for it in the first place - carries a certain stigma in professional circles that has been very effectively established. And it's not just journalism: there is an insidious culture of repression seeping through the commentariat...
I honestly don't think it's an exaggeration to say that duly reporting/citing/acknowledging evidence that weighs in Corbyn's favour is now a career-risking move.
