Was the Sun’s reporter Lynn Davidson watching a different remembrance day ceremony to the Daily Telegraph’s Charles Moore?
Here’s Davidson’s take on the actions of Jeremy Corbyn on laying a wreath:
“The pacifist Labour leader ignored the traditional bow at London’s Cenotaph... he gave a slight nod of the head rather than the traditional solemn bow.”
And here’s Moore’s assessment of Corbyn’s conduct:
“He comported himself appropriately. Contrary to some comment, there was nothing wrong with his slight bow as he laid his wreath. He wore unobjectionable clothes, a red poppy and a respectful expression.”
Clearly, a nod’s as good as a wink to some reporters. Admittedly, Davidson was able to garner quotes from people who thought Corbyn’s nod inappropriate. They included the rent-a-quote Labour maverick, Simon Danczuk, and an ex-Tory defence minister, Sir Gerald Howarth, plus a self-styled, self-promoting “etiquette expert” .
The same expert was also quoted in the Telegraph’s news report, Was it a bow or was it a nod? Corbyn called an ‘embarrassment to country, that was at odds with Moore’s piece.
Robert Hardman, writing in the Daily Mail, thought Corbyn “appeared to freeze rather than offer the ritual gesture of submission and salutation.”
Generously, he added: “There could be no faulting his solemnity. It was just a rather odd performance. Maybe it was just nerves - understandable, on this stage.”
Despite that, Hardman’s piece earned Corbyn a negative headline, He only had to nod in respect... so why did Corbyn barely move his head?
The report in the Daily Express by Richard Palmer alleged that Corbyn “raised eyebrows” by failing to bow his head “properly” and that he was guilty of wearing “an unruly shirt collar and baggy trousers.”
An online Guardian article, Jeremy Corbyn criticised for not bowing deeply enough at Cenotaph, told of critical comments on Twitter, but the piece wasn’t carried in the print issue.
Reports in the Times, Independent, Daily Mirror, Daily Star and Metro made no mention of Corbyn’s performance. So was the Sun really justified in leading its front page (“Nod in my name”), running a spread (Bow your head in shame) and an editorial (War & peacenik) about a non-story?
Indeed, was it justified in referring to the Stop the War coalition, which Corbyn used to chair, as “odious”? Are we to asssume the Sun prefers making war?
But the Cenotaph business was something of a sideshow to another story about Corbyn in Monday’s national newspapers, which concerned the attack on his anti-nuclear stance by the head of the UK armed forces, General Sir Nicholas Houghton.
It was the splash in the Telegraph, Independent and Metro. The Guardian gave it front page billing, as did the Express. It got big shows also in the Times, Mail and Mirror.
Some headlines revealed the papers’ political sympathies. Those regarded as anti-Corbyn (and anti-Labour) chose to major on Houghton’s assault while those regarded as anti-Tory preferred to highlight Corbyn’s complaint about the intervention.
On one side was the Mirror’s “Corbyn: stop this meddling general”; the Indy’s “Corbyn goes to war with head of military”; the i’s “Corbyn takes aim at general over Trident comment”; and the Guardian’s “Corbyn to complain over military interference”. Plus, incidentally, the non-partisan Metro’s “Corbyn attacks defence chief in nuclear row”.
On the other were the Telegraph’s “General’s stinging attack on Corbyn” and the Sun’s “General blasts Jez”.
Others were less partisan and more neutral: “Corbyn at war with the top brass” (Times); “Corbyn goes to war with Forces’ chief over nuclear button” (Mail) and “Army chief and Corbyn clash on defence” (Express).
But the Express leading article was unequivocal: “Corbyn’s nuclear position is threat to our security” despite his “incredibly slim” chances of becoming prime minister.
The Sun’s editorial said: “We’re not keen on unelected generals spouting off about politics. But General Houghton’s remarks were unarguable facts on a matter central to our defence... Nukes are only a deterrent if the PM of the day is prepared to press the button.”
The Mirror thought Houghton was “terribly ill-advised” to speak out. It argued: “Civilian control of the military is a constitutional keystone in a free and democratic country... Serving members of the Armed Forces are supposed to be above party politics. Both democracy and the military are jeopardised when generals take sides in public debates.”
Overall, however, it was yet another day in which Corbyn suffered from a crop of negative headlines and articles. The drip-drip-drip of hostility is becoming a flood... and we are years away from another general election.
