Pro-Conservative media created a hostile environment

The argument

Proponents of this argument hold that Labour's 2019 defeat cannot be explained without reference to the media environment in which the campaign was fought. On this view, the mainstream media crucified Jeremy Corbyn on a daily basis, in a display of partisanship and bias that went well beyond the ordinary scrutiny any opposition leader should expect. The coverage, advocates argue, was not an occasional lapse but a sustained pattern: day after day, Corbyn was presented to the public through a hostile frame, so that by the time voters came to cast their ballots, their impression of the Labour leader had been shaped less by his actual programme than by months of relentlessly negative portrayal. Central to the case is the charge of a double standard. Corbyn was accused of being unpatriotic — a framing that attacked his character and his fitness to lead the country rather than his policies. Yet, proponents point out, Boris Johnson faced no comparable treatment despite lying to the Queen and attacking Britain's national institutions, including parliament and the BBC. If patriotism were genuinely the standard being applied, they reason, a prime minister who misled the monarch and undermined the very institutions that embody British public life would have been judged at least as harshly. That he was not, on this view, exposes the coverage as one-sided: the test was applied to one leader and waived for the other. The inference to the position follows directly. Elections are decided by public perception, and public perception is substantially formed by the media through which most voters encounter politics. If that media environment was systematically hostile to Labour's leader while sparing his Conservative opponent equivalent scrutiny, then the contest was tilted before a single argument was heard on its merits. Pro-Conservative media bias, proponents conclude, is therefore a genuine cause of Labour's loss — the media itself is part of the answer to why Labour lost in 2019.

Context

Pro-Conservative newspapers whipped up public anger at the Labour leadership and diverted attention from the many failings of the Conservative party.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The media is rarely favourable to any politician. Anyone that is going to get into national politics knows this and part of the battle during an election campaign is knowing how to manage, and eventually win over the media. Fleet-street has never been an ally of Labour. Yet previous leaders have managed to keep the salivating journalists prowling Westminster’s halls in search of signs of Labour’s demise at bay. Jeremy Corbyn’s failure to effectively manage the media only further underscores his unsuitability for leadership.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Corbyn is not unique, the media always attack Labour leaders more than Conservative leaders. Despite this, Corbyn's predecessors overcame the media to secure victory. Therefore, the media did not play a central role in the Labour defeat.