The Monday print version is as disturbing as I could imagine based on TV and online over the weekend.
Corbyn is reported but very sliced up. Bottom of page 4 his readiness to welcome an election was interpreted as a threat to block brexit apparently, later amended to something else. Actually he made a clear statement at a public event on Saturday and gave an interview to the Sunday Mirror.
Polly Toynbee on TV chose to rely on the ITN ambush, so why this garbled version of a clear answer to the question?
Workers rights panel opposite page. half way though Corbyn on workers rights as a condition for supporting May on article 50.
So strictly speaking the reporting of facts is just about included. But the journalistic skill is invested in forms of obscurity.
Meanwhile Zoe Williams mentions the "once vilified figures who periodically pop up as the voice of reason" - Tony Blair, Nick Clegg, John Major. Thing is in parliament the official leader of the opposition has some basis for asking questions. Always more effective if reported. Yes you read this in a blog, sometimes lost on @guardian just my opinion.
A newspaper that ignores facts available from other sources just to fit their brand of opinion is in some danger if the echo chamber fails to resonate.
Labour supporters backing off so LibDems can win an election? Based on what would you think? Get ready for another Polly Toynbee on blame Corbyn.
What happened during the referendum is still obscure. Lord Mandelson may have been involved in some media arrangements. Corbyn was not fully reported. Project Fear was all about the economy as in the City. Worker rights no more discussed than the Sunday Mirror interview this weekend was reported by BBC or Guardian. So I think an understanding of what happened is getting more clear.