By now we've all seen or at least heard about the utopian manifesto that Jeremy Corbyn has penned for us, a manifesto that will drastically improve the lives of millions of people up and down the country and a manifesto that has gone down like a glass of cold sick with the UK media.
It would not be considered hyperbolic to say that the corporate media are reeling by it's contents and it's patently clear they see Corbyn as a real challenge to the status-quo that has cemented their position amongst the elites of society. Their choice now is either to continue with their primary objective of defeating the interests of the working class, or do they tread uncharted territory and do that, Y'know objective reporting thing, what's it called?... journalism.
When it first leaked the Daily Telegraph smugly posted an image of Corbyn that had been photo-shopped to resemble some cold-war propaganda memorabilia. BBC News, Sky News and others in the print media dutifully followed suit, revealing their pro-establishment bias in the process. For example Sky news referred to the leak as 'embarrassing', Interestingly there was no ridiculous 'was it Russia' speculation that accompanied their narrative and fleeting coverage of the Podesta WikiLeaks and Hillary Clintons thrashing by the most beatable candidate in history, there was no comparison offered between Labour's impending policies to that of the Tories, who's only know policy so far which is the ever popular fox hunting revival, they didn't even go to twitter reactions (and they ALWAYS go to twitter reactions) of course we all know the reason they didn't cut to the tweetalator was because they didn't want to show how overwhelmingly popular the reaction has been.
THIS ^^^^ right here is the reason more and more people are getting their news online btw.
Yet, despite the media's obvious bias towards their donor and owner classes, (and I don't necessarily blame them for this, as long as they declare it... which they never do) there's still a percentage of working people who are hesitant to embrace J-Corbz (sorry/not sorry) manifesto and use right-wing media talking points such as "sure, free education sounds great but how are they going to pay for that" as their primary point of resistance.
I have NEVER heard ANY news outlet ask "how are we going to pay for the £billions in tax cuts for millionaires, or how can we afford to bail out the banks, how can we afford all these unsanctioned interventions that we obediently follow America into, or how can we afford to be the 7th highest defence spending nation on the planet, how we can afford to give billions in corporate subsidies? yes as soon as anybody on the left suggests investment in the people... "how you gonna pay for it?"
So the question I ask myself, is why in the heck would anybody in the bottom 95% tacitly defend those in the top 5% (who take the most public money in welfare, who receive the highest salaries and pay the least amount of tax), by punching down on those with even less wealth and less power than them? What would lead a person to defend the very system that oppresses them?
The most obvious answer is that it's the longest standing right-wing false narrative that's been doing the rounds since Kinnock. It's been drummed into people that we can't afford to risk educating everybody, or risk giving everybody the same opportunities as those at the top of society. Know your role and wait for crumbs... fuck that!