I came across this piece for the first time the other day, from the height of pre-election madness in 2019, and it's quite a good summary of the sheer dross that passes for commentary on world affairs in the British media—always geared towards having a pop at the left. 1/
The claims of "serious irregularities" and "clear manipulation" from the OAS were complete bunk, as was clear at the time, not merely in hindsight. 2/
Within days of this article appearing, the coup regime had massacred those protesting against the ousting of Morales by the Bolivian army. But hey, don't call it a coup guys: that "doesn't cut it." 3/
This is where the obsession with Corbyn-bashing intersects perfectly with blissful ignorance: he speaks fluent Latin American Spanish and is married to a Mexican woman. But I guess the author knows how to order beer and tapas on a city-break to Barcelona, so she has the edge. 4/
The allusion to "magic realism" is a nice touch here: looks like somebody has read One Hundred Years of Solitude and considers themselves an authority on Latin American culture. 5/
The disappearances associated with Argentina's dirty war took place under the military regimes of Videla and Galtieri, after the death of Juan Peron and the ouster of his widow. The author appears to be equally well-informed about the olfactory gifts of Latin Americans. 6/
A year after this complacent dreck appeared in a British liberal newspaper, the people of Bolivia returned the MAS to power with an overwhelming victory in the first round of the election. "Propagandist, hypocritical and ignorant" is a nice turn of phrase, though. 7/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a very good and depressing piece, and really drives home the point that Uber isn't so much a company as a latter-day version of the Pinkertons, lavishly subsidized by venture capital through its multi-billion losses to smash up workers' rights.
"Despite signing the bill [to regulate Uber], Newsom was still trying to negotiate an agreement that would ultimately shield them from it."
Another would-be foe: “The goal of the matter is for everyone to walk away equally unhappy”—the centrist credo really, how inspiring! Can't imagine how Uber has been able to roll over the opposition to its schemes like a tank.
This interview with one of Starmer’s aides, whiny and petulant as it is, is still worth looking at properly to see how inane and vacuous their political vision is. 1/
Harris says that she cries when she thinks about Labour MPs who lost their seats in 2019 (not about the people who have already suffered and will continue suffering under a Conservative government). But why did they lose those seats? 2/
The MPs she mentions all represented Leave-voting constituencies (margins ranging from 9 to 16%). They all gained votes under Corbyn in 2017 but lost in 2019. 3/
Some familiar figures are pushing the absurd and defamatory claim that Ken Loach supports Holocaust denial. The story of this bogus talking-point, which relies upon multiple layers of falsehood and guilt-by-association, makes for a revealing case-study. 1/
It dates back to the 2017 Labour conference. In a NYT op-ed, Howard Jacobson claimed that “a motion to question the truth of the Holocaust was proposed” from the conference floor—a crude fabrication, which the NYT sanctioned in its pages. 2/
If you follow the link supplied by Jacobson or his editors, you’ll see that he was wrong on 3 counts: it wasn’t a motion, it wasn’t at the conference, and it wasn’t in favour of Holocaust denial. Quite the hat-trick! 3/
I wrote this piece back in December, but the plea for consistency was strictly rhetorical: I never expected the NYT and kindred spirits to learn any lessons from Trump. Now they're at it again in their Trumpian reporting on Ecuador's election. 1/
The fact that Latin American left-wing politicians were "accused of corruption and authoritarian overreach" tells us nothing; Biden and the Democrats have been accused of the same by Trump and the Capitol Hill mob. The question is whether those charges have any substance. 2/
Brazil's PT leaders were "accused of corruption" by a rabidly partisan magistrate who went on to take a cabinet post under Bolsonaro after paving the way for his electoral triumph. 3/
This Rachel Shabi article is the first proper attempt, I believe, to articulate in detail a certain line (“Corbyn shouldn’t have been suspended, but his statement on the EHRC report was still wrong”). So it’s worth looking at properly. 1/
Shabi takes the EHRC and its report entirely at face value: a “sobering verdict”, no less. This is not the first time she’s done this: she also uncritically endorsed the claims made in the BBC’s Panorama documentary in July 2019. 2/
She then scolded the Labour leadership for stating that the central claims made in that documentary were demonstrably untrue and indeed the opposite of the truth, something that has become even more obvious since. 3/
I have no issue with people disliking the Canary—it's never been my cup of tea, either. But I've never seen any coherent argument to explain why left figures should no-platform it while still engaging with Britain's commercial newspapers, whose record is incomparably worse.
Corbyn published this post-election piece in the Observer, for example, which not only supported the Iraq war, but ran a batch of fake stories about WMDs to sell it in advance (Nick Davies has a great account of how that happened in Flat Earth News).
If you put together all the sins of the Canary since it first appeared, it wouldn't come close to matching the harmful impact of those Observer stories on Iraq. Should Corbyn have boycotted them, too?
(They stitched him up with the headline, but that's another story)