It has an overall narrative and frequently misrepresents evidence to suit that narrative. Here's a few:
"Concerns about sexual assaults on public transport were construed as campaigning for women-only trains. Advocacy for Keynesian fiscal and monetary policies was presented as a plan to “turn Britain into Zimbabwe.” An appeal to reconsider the foreign policy approach of the last decade was presented as an association with Putin’s Russia." - Women-only train carriages was an actual suggestion he made, it wasn't made up. He advocated "people's QE" in order to fund spending commitments, which was highlighted as likely to increase inflation. He had frequent appearances on Russia Today as a reliable West-basher.
The complaints about Laura Kuenssberg being able to get stories is bizarre. The complaints about the anti-semitism ordeal completely miss the point, citing "only" one sitting MP (and ignoring the continued and repeated anti-semitic actions in the aftermath of one of Corbyn's longest-standing political friends), who has since admitted that she was being anti-semitic and strongly apologised for it, criticising the many who had defended what she said.
Citing the resignations of the shadow cabinet as evidence of BBC bias - it's news. They cover that.
Citing the Thomas Piketty resignation - it's correct to say it was initially reported as a response to the EU vote and later turned out to have been done earlier. But it also implies that him having cited Corbyn's "weak leadership" was an invention - it wasn't, he did complain about it.
Apparently complaining about a tweet from a Guardian journalist that accurately reports what McDonnell said on free movement.
I could go on. It wants there to be a big conspiracy to bring down a faultless leader, whereas in reality the media just likes conflict and are going to report on it - see how giddy with excitement they were when Gove moved against Boris. Or when Angela Leadsom pulled out of the Tory leadership race, and they abandoned Angela Eagle's leadership launch to go and cover it. Do the media get things wrong and have to correct stuff when new info comes to light? Of course, and again this happens on the right. It's not a conspiracy.
Apologies for the length of the response there, wasn't intending to go on that much
That first line is pretty ironic
He didn't campaign for women only train carriages. Your own evidence makes that clear. There are arguments to be had about people's QE without Zimbabwe comparisons. All of those examples are from a Private Eye section anyway:
Kuenssberg — We've been here before. The on-air resignation was hugely problematic. Probably an abuse of her position. More widely, the BBC's political coverage is often problematic because there is little separation between comment and correspondence. The criticism of the BBC's coverage from both Nick Robinson and Michael Lyons is telling.
The resignations were not cited as evidence of bias, the Kuenssberg article alleging that Corbyn sabotaged the remain campaign in advance of them was. I didn't read that article at the time but Christ it is an awful, awful article. (It takes around three quotes out of context from a handful of emails selectively leaked to her by a biased source out of god knows how many emails sent during the campaign which she manages to construct a 700 word article alleging a deliberate sabotage attempt from). Kuenssberg might not be a bad political commentator. She is an awful journalist.
Piketty resigned in advance of Brexit due to time constraints. Post Brexit he said he was concerned about it and thought that Labour's campaign had been weak. Somehow that becomes "Piketty resign's due to Corbyn's weak leadership". I mean wasn't Alan Johnson the head of Labour's campaign?
The Israel ISIS speech was a new nadir for reporting. When even The Guardian is literally deliberately misquoting Corbyn to attack him it should be obvious how agenda driven the media is.
And look. This isn't to say Corbyn is a faultless leader who is only struggling to connect to people because of the press he gets. But the press he gets is a problem. Not just for Labour's electoral chances but for our democracy.
It is also bizarre that people on the centre-left/Corbyn's opponents are so happy to dismiss and ignore this sort of agenda. This kind of agenda is precisely why Miliband couldn't win. It's not the only reason, but it will happen again to the soft-left if you succeed in removing Corbyn. (You will at least have The Guardian back on side as if that will make a difference)
The media continually and deliberately get things wrong with corrections never given equivalent prominence. We can have a debate about the causation. Is the British media shitty and racist and right-wing and war-mongering because that's what the British people want to read, or are the British people shitty and racist and right-wing and war-mongering because that's what their media tell them to be? Probably a bit of column A and a bit of column B. But we undoubtedly have an awful media and that shouldn't be brushed aside simply because they are undermining someone you do not like.
Concerns about sexual assaults on public transport were construed as campaigning for women-only trains
Corbyn said: “Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop to on the mode of transport itself. However, I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome - and also if piloting this at times and modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest.
Suggest a consultation on an idea = Campaigning.
Make multiple speeches and appearances explicitly campaigning for the UK to remain in the EU = Sabotaging the Remain case. Not campaigning
Yes. It is the Jacobin article that is twisted.
2+2=5