Last week footballers Marcus Rashford and Jesse Lingard were forced to explain themselves following a picture circulating which showed the two men in a photo with grime artist Wiley. Why?
I find it bizarre that these two men, who have never been implicated in anything to do with racism, besides publicly opposing it, have had to put out statements saying they condemn antisemitism. In a media culture that castigates many for the crime of standing too close to people who’ve done bad things, some are exempt, and some are not. I’m starting to wonder what Marcus Rashford, champion of children’s dinners, and a man who gave more than his yearly salary to charity in 2020, has to do for people to give him the benefit of the doubt. Let me explain.
Former Labour minister and current Lord Peter Mandleson is pictured below helping perhaps the worlds most prolific paedophile blow out candles on his birthday cake. Transcripts of calls with Epstein during his time in government show Epstein calling him ‘Petie’. Yet Peter Mandleson has never had to apologise for this or clarify that he is ‘opposed to all forms of paedophilia and sex trafficking. It is taken as a given.
The ‘free press’ have given Petie a pass.
How was he supposed to know? Is he responsible for the actions of everyone he meets? Of course not. Which is by I find it bizarre that two young footballers, commonly understood to be decent men and role models, have had to clarify that they do not support the views of someone they had a picture with two years ago. What could be the reason? Hmm..
It seems almost too easy to point out that the first picture, which contains a sex-trafficker and an unelected Lord, is of two white men. While the second, containing two footballers and a musician, is a picture of three black men.
Though pointing out race as a key factor is of course valid, I ultimately think we can take a broader view here. So, why does our current media climate require explanation and remorse from Marcus Rashford’s picture with Wiley, but not Peter Mandleson, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, or even Prince Andrew for their pictures with Epstein? Well, it’s simple:
Marcus Rashford pushed for more of the UK’s wealth to go to those in poverty. The others did not.
Despite some Tory politicians, right-wing journalists, and even Nigel-fucking-Farage EVENTUALLY conceding that Rashford was probably right about the whole “feeding hungry children” thing, he has since suffered increased media scrutiny. You can’t take the side of the working class in a meaningful, material way and expect to be allowed to get on with your life afterwards. The right-wing press will inevitably keep following him, waiting for him to slip up in some way- as if doing so would invalidate his social causes.
Cast your mind back to the Summer of 2021 when, after missing his penalty in the Euro 2020 final, Rashford was greeted with sneering jibes from conservative figures telling him he should ‘stick to football’. This kind of discourse is obviously brain-dead. Telling someone to simply not argue with you generally means you’ve lost. But what it meant was clear: “We don’t want you to argue on the behalf of poor families, please stop”.
Tory commentator Darren Grimes, who rose to fame for his public masturbation scandal (google it), was perhaps the most condescending on that fateful day, tagging Rashford in a tweet reading “penalties, not politics from now on, eh?”. This was straight after Rashford and other black players received a torrent of racist abuse following England’s defeat.
The Daily Mail released a hit-piece on Rashford shortly after his school dinners campaign took off, letting readers know he’d bought his mum an expensive house. As if we don’t know footballers are paid a lot. This too can be read as a direct response to him positioning himself on one side of the class struggle.
But of course, this is nothing new. In much of the Western world- particularly the UK- taking the side of the working class inevitably means more media scrutiny, more harassment, and absolutely no benefit of the doubt from journalists.
If Jeremy Corbyn had been a free-market capitalist pledging to cut benefits, do you think his old pictures with IRA members would have been such a big deal?
If Dianne Abbot had campaigned to shoot the boats of migrants crossing the channel, would that bad radio interview still be being brought up five years on?
If Bernie Sanders had pledged to give subsidies to oil companies and lower corporate taxes, do you think him becoming a millionaire aged 78 from his book sales would have been such a big deal?
If Marcus Rashford joined the Conservatives, criticised BLM, and called for the cutting of state spending, would his picture with Wiley, or indeed his salary, be such a big deal?
The left will go after the right for prioritising the needs of the rich above the needs of the poor. The right will then go after the left for absolutely anything because when confronted with someone who sees them for what they are, dragging them down with them is the best they can hope for.
Comments