The media isn’t Jeremy Corbyn’s problem – his personality is

Jeremy Corbyn’s overwhelming re-election as Labour leader this weekend is likely to quieten opponents within the parliamentary party – to a degree at least. There is less chance that the mainstream media (MSM) will change its collective, critical tune. Accusations from Corbyn supporters of deliberate bias against their man are likely, therefore, to continue.

The primary media response to the announcement of Corbyn’s landslide victory over Owen Smith was to conclude that Labour is further away from government than ever. The right-wing press regard the party leader with barely-disguised contempt; newspapers which would traditionally be Labour supporting have mustered little obvious enthusiasm for his continued leadership. The Independent’s editorial on the subject described Sunday’s result as a “remarkable personal achievement” for Corbyn but suggested that his win was regrettable because he would be unlikely to win a general election – and that in turn would result in a free run for the Tories.

For media outlets which have historically favoured the Conservative Party, antipathy towards Corbyn is largely a consequence of a fundamental disagreement over his perceived politics. And while broadcasters are obliged to give his views a fair(ish) hearing, non-broadcast media can be as partisan as they like – that, in the end, is what press freedom looks like.

But not all of the anti-Corbyn commentary is synonymous with being “anti-Labour”, or even “anti-leftist”. Indeed, it is arguably Corbyn’s greatest problem that many of his opponents within the broader Labour tent – including figures in the media – criticise him because they regard him as incompetent or unappealing to potential voters, not because of specific policy clashes. In essence, they regard him as being incapable of keeping the government on its toes.

The counter-argument put forward with some vehemence by Corbynistas is that left-leaning commentators who nonetheless dismiss Labour’s chances are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they really wanted Labour to stand a chance of election, they should get behind a leader whose mandate from the party membership is indisputable. The problem here is that backers of Corbyn are fighting on the territory least likely to win over a sceptical media – their leader’s personality.

The question for Labour’s top brass then is whether it is possible to convince at least a portion of the media to change its mind about Jeremy Corbyn. If he manages to bring a greater sense of unity to his party at Westminster there is a chance of course. Theresa May is a much less commanding performer at Prime Minister’s Questions than her predecessor, which may give Corbyn a glimmer of hope. For better or worse there is little that brings a political party together than regular successes at PMQs.

The other area where Corbyn can win over doubters is by proving he not only stands against racism and sexism in his party but that he will take serious action against those who behave in a way that is contrary to the fight against discrimination. This ought not to be a difficult task in theory – but then, not all of Corbyn’s support base in Momentum can be relied on to play nicely. And the actions of his most one-eyed fans will always reflect on Corbyn himself, however unfair he believes that may be.

If all else fails, there is always the option of giving up on the mainstream media altogether. Being cast as an anti-establishment figure has worked for Corbyn thus far and the world seems currently full of political mavericks for which railing against the dreaded “MSM” is a cogent electoral tactic.

Yet there is an irony in all this, which is that for all the talk on both sides of the fence about the rights and wrongs of opposing a democratically-elected leader, it still isn’t really clear what Jeremy Corbyn stands for in 2016. Better funding for the NHS; the renationalisation of some public services; a stop to fracking and the maintenance of the comprehensive schooling system are all on his agenda. But these pale by comparison with the more abstract notion that Corbyn is a socialist who wants to take the Labour Party back to its roots.

That vague idea is enough to ensure the lasting condescension of many, who see him simply as an anachronism. Paradoxically, those most likely to oppose it as a position of fact are those on the far left who would argue that Corbyn isn’t really a socialist at all because he broadly accepts the need to work within a capitalist system. These rather tortured debates then move into the really thorny territory of whether Labour was ever actually a socialist party in any case. (The answer – despite the existence of the original constitution’s ‘nationalisation’ Clause IV – being probably not, except perhaps for its last period of rank un-electability in the early nineteen eighties.)

But whichever way you look at it, all roads always end up pointing to Jeremy Corbyn’s personality – inviolable to his supporters, inadequate to his critics. Perhaps the only upside is that at least there seems to be agreement that he has a personality, which is more than can be said for some in the Parliamentary Labour Party who would fancy themselves in his shoes. Indeed, arguably the greatest tragedy for the Labour Party is not that Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is second rate; but that his victory in two successive contests is a reflection of the paucity of charismatic talent elsewhere in its ranks.