You might expect the Times to at least attempt to hold on to a modicum of credibility but I guess that doesn’t sell papers as well as intriguing headlines or the embellishment of a storyline does it?
Around the end of September the Times printed an article by Eleni Courea, a Times political reporter, headed “Labour Taps rich donors who left the party”. I tried to google the article but it appears to have mysteriously disappeared. However, by some luck, Novara Media reported on it on their youtube channel on the 29th September.
Yesterday, The Skwawkbox reported that Unite Union had slashed it’s funding to the Labour Party by £700k (approx. 10%) and that this was in direct response to the party’s lurch to the right, under Keir Starmer.
This afternoon, the Times printed a new article declaring that Labour had suddenly started wooing rich donors and implying that this was as a response to Unite’s decision to cut funding.
Given that the Times themselves had already reported, over a week earlier, that they were aware that Starmer had already started going after wealthy donors, what could possibly be the reason for this repurposing of the facts? Is it simply because stretching the facts helps them to sell papers or is there some other, more sinister, reason? Perhaps a desire to control the narrative?
Certainly, once you get past the paywall and read the full article you do find a small quote from Starmer, in response to a question about how damaging Unites decision would be to the party’s finances. Starmer responds.. “Even before Unite’s decision, we were looking at how we can raise the funds to win in 2024 and we’re looking at various different models,”. The article then goes on to report that the party’s new general secretary had previously indicated that former backers were now returning to the party. What the article does not touch on however is the numbers of Labour members who have now left the party in their droves and how that has impacted the party’s finances. It seems to me, that this would be a question any journalist worth their salt would be itching to put to the new leader of the Labour party, given even half the opportunity but I’m guessing that doesn’t suit their narrative at all?