There's just been three digs at Berlusconi on the NA cover (plus another on the EU cover that wasn't on the NA cover that I'm aware of)--one of which was nothing more than an addition on the bill of bailouts of Eastern Europe saying "Silvio to go (if only)".
In 1998 alone, there are 5 digs at Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Three in 2000 at Bush, and several more over the course of the presidency (to be fair, Bush kinda was an easy target for this sort of stuff)--and they endorsed him. Vladimir Putin has also been a sore point for them (Vlad the Impaler all the way back in 2003? I'd forgotten Putin's been around that long...). The 2008 Super Tuesday issue had Mike Huckabee shaking hands with a pig in a field of mud.
That's not counting the number of world leaders or potential world leaders they hate... which tends to round to about all of them. The Economist doesn't try to represent facts neutrally, but rather finds something to criticize about everything (even things they like, usually because it's not as far as could be gone) to exhort people to do what they think people should be doing.
Sure, Berlusconi has had it a lot, but that's because he's the rare example of a (to them) incompetent leader actually gaining power and keeping it for a long time. If someone like Trump or Le Pen or Farage were to be elected, you'd see equally, possibly more, relentless negative coverage of them. Hell, they're still appalled that Trump actually won the nomination.
>In 1998 alone, there are 5 digs at Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Three in 2000 at Bush, and several more over the course of the presidency (to be fair, Bush kinda was an easy target for this sort of stuff)--and they endorsed him. Vladimir Putin has also been a sore point for them (Vlad the Impaler all the way back in 2003? I'd forgotten Putin's been around that long...). The 2008 Super Tuesday issue had Mike Huckabee shaking hands with a pig in a field of mud.
I think this is more of a general British attitude than The Economist in particular. You see a lot of the same kind of stuff from the BBC. Arrogant, anglo-centric, looking down the nose at anyone foreign.
The BBC is clearly doing a pretty good job at being unbiased (as per its mandate) as _everyone_ thinks it's biased against _them_.
In reality, in an attempt at balance, the Beeb generall gives too much time to fringe views, often lending the appearance of legitimacy to them. (cf. Their climate change coverage up until fairly recently)
At the time of those videos, the Labour leadership coup wasn't in full effect, the questions instead were focused on hammering on the 'unelectable' narrative the BBC and other mainstream media outlets have been aiming at Corbyn since he got in the leadership race.
Contrast this with the softball questions that Cameron was getting. Worth remembering there's plenty of controversial decisions that the Conservatives made in the recent past that they could've discussed, that 'no journalist can ignore', I can go into details if you like.
Additionally, I could point out plenty of other examples of media spin from the BBC against Corbyn. Would be willing to share more.
Based on what? The fact he won the Labour leadership election by a landslide? The fact that the Labour party membership has nearly doubled compared to last year? The fact that Labour have held all 4 seats contested in by elections since he was elected leader ( http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/by-e... )? The fact that Labour largely maintained their lead in local government representatives during the last local elections?
You could probably point to some poll or other that claimed he was unelectable, but as I said before, the media has been attacking him from day one, and many people are swayed by what they read in the media. There's also the issue of the rise of the SNP in Scotland, but that's got very little to do with Corbyn.
Winning the leadership isn't the same as winning an election, both Labour and the Tories have a history of choosing leaders from the extremes of their party then not being able to get into power.
Labour needs to stop blaming the media for their woes and get on with making themselves acceptable to the general electorate.
> "Winning the leadership isn't the same as winning an election, both Labour and the Tories have a history of choosing leaders from the extremes of their party then not being able to get into power."
With that you're implying that Corbyn's views are out of sync with the general public. Which views in particular do you believe are the most extreme in this regard?
> "Labour needs to stop blaming the media for their woes and get on with making themselves acceptable to the general electorate."
Like it or not, the media plays a massive role in shaping public opinion. Whilst the current civil war in the Labour party is damaging the respectability of the Labour party, a large portion of the public will accept whatever they're told in the media as gospel. You only have to look at what happened as a result of the Brexit media campaigns to see how easily people on both sides were swayed by demagoguery, but if you want more specific examples it'd be easy enough to provide some.
Just his policies on nationalisation are enough to put me off, some of us are old enough to remember what a disaster nationalised industries were in the past.
It covers, amongst other things, how public services are mismanaged on purpose to make privatisation seem like progress. One of the sources of information it touches on is a book by the Conservative MP Oliver Letwin that lays out the approach taken for privitising public services, so it's not some form of conspiracy theory, the book is publicly available.
Sorry, I don't understand. Here's my summary of our current conversation.
1. You say Corbyn can't get elected.
2. I ask you why.
3. You imply that his views do not line up with what people want.
4. I ask you which of his views are out of touch with public opinion.
5. You suggest the main problem you have with his views is that he believes in re-nationalising, and you remember how badly public industries were run.
6. I provide evidence that public services were badly run on purpose in order to pave the way for privatisation.
7. You reply that it's interesting but it's immaterial because Corbyn can't get elected.
If I've misunderstood something of this conversation in your opinion, please clarify what that is.
I personally don't see the problem with re-nationalising the railways in the UK (to give one example of a Corbyn policy), especially if the incentive to run them poorly on purpose is taken away (i.e. not having a government that's interested in privatising it). The rail service in the UK has become vastly overpriced (compared with other developed nations) since the railways were privatised. Delays and cancellations are still commonplace too. I don't see what great benefits the privatisation of the the UK rail system has brought us.
In 1998 alone, there are 5 digs at Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Three in 2000 at Bush, and several more over the course of the presidency (to be fair, Bush kinda was an easy target for this sort of stuff)--and they endorsed him. Vladimir Putin has also been a sore point for them (Vlad the Impaler all the way back in 2003? I'd forgotten Putin's been around that long...). The 2008 Super Tuesday issue had Mike Huckabee shaking hands with a pig in a field of mud.
That's not counting the number of world leaders or potential world leaders they hate... which tends to round to about all of them. The Economist doesn't try to represent facts neutrally, but rather finds something to criticize about everything (even things they like, usually because it's not as far as could be gone) to exhort people to do what they think people should be doing.
Sure, Berlusconi has had it a lot, but that's because he's the rare example of a (to them) incompetent leader actually gaining power and keeping it for a long time. If someone like Trump or Le Pen or Farage were to be elected, you'd see equally, possibly more, relentless negative coverage of them. Hell, they're still appalled that Trump actually won the nomination.