Twitter | Search | |
GeorgeMonbiot Mar 11
A brave and remarkable review by . It sounds as if Tom Bower has the same protected status as : he can make appalling errors and distortions, but the media gives him a free pass.
Reply Retweet Like
Jeffrey Bowers
I don't think it has anything to do regarding Tom Bower's protected status. It is about this target of his book. That is why similar nonsense comes from Guardian on a daily basis without regard to balance or fact.
Reply Retweet Like More
GeorgeMonbiot Mar 11
Replying to @jeffrey_bowers
Both the Guardian and the Observer slated the book.
Reply Retweet Like
Jeffrey Bowers Mar 11
Replying to @GeorgeMonbiot
Do you think the Guardian has been generally even-handed and accurate in their reporting of Corbyn?
Reply Retweet Like
Jeffrey Bowers Mar 11
Replying to @GeorgeMonbiot
Just read Guardian Review. Mostly taken as another opporunity to critcize Corbyn! "Other charges, however, are harder to dismiss. Perhaps the most telling criticism is that Corbyn is simply not very bright, or certainly not as bright as leaders are traditionally expected to be".
Reply Retweet Like
Jeffrey Bowers Mar 11
Replying to @GeorgeMonbiot
And this is how it ends: "This is the most compelling in-depth study so far of a man whose head is unusually difficult to get inside, given his suspicion of anyone who isn’t a fellow traveller. Just don’t expect it to change anyone’s mind."
Reply Retweet Like
Jeffrey Bowers Mar 11
Replying to @GeorgeMonbiot
And... " We all know by now about the meetings with Holocaust deniers and perpetrators of blood libel, the somersaults turned to avoid blaming the Kremlin for the Salisbury poisonings...". And this is your defence of the Guardian?
Reply Retweet Like
Nancy Strang 🌹 Mar 11
George, be straight here. The Guardian has dedicated the last 3 and a half years to vilifying Corbyn. Bower’s book continues the tradition. He knew his lies wouldn’t be scrutinised because the mainstream media, as a whole, has no interest in treating Corbyn fairly.
Reply Retweet Like
GeorgeMonbiot Mar 11
That is simply not true. Like the Labour Party, the Guardian is a broad church, with many conflicting opinions, on Labour and other issues.
Reply Retweet Like
Steve Tindle Mar 11
George, it’s unsettling to see you so so comfortable with setting aside the evidence and opt for the king’s shilling on this.
Reply Retweet Like
GeorgeMonbiot Mar 11
The claim I challenged is that "The Guardian has dedicated the last 3 and a half years to vilifying Corbyn." It is not true. Do you read the paper?
Reply Retweet Like
Steve Tindle Mar 11
I’m celebrating 1 year of being clean, though I admit I do still look through online. The question needs to be asked George, do you read The Guardian. Today you claimed that the Bower book was received harshly by The Guardian. This isn’t the case, it’s there in black and white.
Reply Retweet Like
GeorgeMonbiot Mar 11
Then how would you know? If you did, you would have seen, for example, that this is the most promoted comment article of the day
Reply Retweet Like
Kebz Mar 11
Its roughly 7 hostile pieces to every sympathetic piece. Hardly a broad church when every accusation of anti-Semitism is covered in minute detail but policies are ignored. You are a fig leaf providing cover for Viner, George.
Reply Retweet Like
GeorgeMonbiot Mar 11
Replying to @OriginalKebz
What is the source of that figure?
Reply Retweet Like