On 17 August, Labour leadership challenger Owen Smith said he would negotiate with Daesh (Isis/Isil) to resolve the conflict in Syria. His comments have sent mainstream media outlets into a tailspin, forcing them to condemn the establishment’s ‘little darling’ for the first time since he entered the race.
The admission occurred in the latest Labour leadership debate, hosted by the BBC. The presenter had asked both Jeremy Corbyn and Smith whether they would consider “sitting down” with Syrian President Assad and members of Daesh in an attempt to deal with the ongoing crisis in Syria.
Corbyn noted that there “already is a political process being conducted through the Geneva talks” that involves talks with the Assad regime. But he insisted Daesh would “not be round the table”.
Smith took a slightly different position:
my view is that ultimately all solutions to these sorts of crises, these sort of international crises, do come about through dialogue. So eventually, if we’re to try and solve this, all of the actors do need to be involved. But at the moment Isil are clearly not interested in negotiating.
How on earth do we spin this?
The initial media reaction was generally one of incredulity. The Mirror seemed startled by Smith’s suggestion that the UK should make a peace deal with a “murderous terror group”. The Daily Express similarly decried his proposal to negotiate with the “barbaric” jihadis.
Numerous outlets then highlighted the criticism in political circles that the statement had drawn. The Guardian noted that Conservative MP Johnny Mercer had commented:
His desperate attempts to out-Corbyn Jeremy Corbyn have led him to the view that barbaric murderers who behead journalists and lynch homosexuals are now the sort of people that we should negotiate with.
(One wonders here if Mercer would equally criticise the British establishment’s firm friendship with Saudi Arabia – where both journalists and homosexuals have faced execution. A separate point, but relevant.)
The Daily Mail, meanwhile, pointed out that Mercer had said Smith’s suggestion proved his “unfitness for leadership”. And The Independent asserted that Smith’s campaign had now been “left reeling”, and noted that Corbyn had said the comments were “hasty and ill-considered”.
Here’s a shovel, mate, start filling
But the media were able to breathe a collective sigh of relief fairly quickly, after Smith noted he didn’t really mean what he said shortly after the debate. As New Statesman reported, Smith insisted that he too believes Daesh is a “violent terrorist organisation”, and is sure it has “no prospect” of being a part of negotiations. A campaign spokesman said:
Owen is clear that there should be absolutely no negotiation with Daesh, or any terrorist group, until they renounce violence, cease all acts of terror and commit themselves to a peaceful settlement.
The Guardian‘s Richard English asserted, however, that Smith’s “rash” comments had helped highlight a “delicate” area that “requires calm and considered debate”. This is quite correct, but it’s instructive that the same conclusion is rarely drawn by the media establishment when Corbyn is faced with controversy.
The Mirror, meanwhile, admitted that Smith’s comments were “clumsy”, but that they helped to “underline that we have [to] stop [the] terrorist group”. And The Independent‘s John Rentoul asserted that Smith’s comments had not been wrong in general, but that they had been wrong if he wanted to be prime minister.
Seemingly, the mainstream media can always find a silver lining when the Labour challenger’s actions are concerned. But such understanding is a rare commodity whenever Corbyn behaves in ways that defy establishment logic.
It’s situations like this that make it excruciatingly obvious whose side the majority of the UK media are on.
– Support The Canary so we can continue bringing you the news that matters.
Image via The Politics Hub/Youtube
We need your help to keep speaking the truth
Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.
Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.
We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.
In return, you get:
* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop
Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.
With your help we can continue:
* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do
We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?