I understand why people get aerated when Owen Jones writes something or participates in something like an interview where he appears critical of Labour’s leadership. Jones is one of the few popular Left voices in the media, so it feels like a betrayal. I may have missed it, because I wasn’t aware of his rise as a Left voice, but it doesn’t seem to me as if he has particularly courted the role that appears to have been proscribed to him and for which he is subsequently criticised for.
For my money, Jones appears a personable bloke, is an interesting and engaging/entertaining orator who projects a Left leaning perspective and doesn’t come across as being all that preachy about what he views as the struggles Labour faces in reaching the electorate. I don’t agree with everything he says but I probably have more in common with his perspective that I do most of those who participate in the media. Owen Jones is the voice of Owen Jones; he’s not my voice, he’s not Labour’s voice and I don’t think he’s trying to set himself up to be that.
I don’t think Jones projects the ‘analysis’ of Labour’s problems that points the fingers where I would point fingers but who says he has to?
Not that what is presented in an ‘interview’ necessarily relates to a viewpoint. The Standard article is a case in point:
I’m not saying the interview write up is a stitch up on a par with Laura Kuenssberg’s fraudulent misrepesentation (we don’t even know if it was an interview by the author of the article or the author lifting the quotes from interviews Jones has given elsewhere) but I think it can be argued that it has questionable holes in it. My rule of thumb, if an interviewee does not say what an interviewer infers then I err on the side of the interviewee having NOT said it.