That Starmer fella...

The suggestion being that Corbyn did, but there was a lot of comment from mainstream journalists when Corbyn became leader that he was very open and willing to engage with them in a way unlike most other political interviewees.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/o­ct/04/jeremy-corbyn-poiitical-interviewi­ng-labout-candid

Did the media end up giving Corbyn a fairer crack of the whip because he was nice? No.

I'm skeptical that if Starmer gets a fairer representation it's purely down to being nice to them. Unless by nice you mean representing their political interests, holidaying with them and becoming godfather their child?

With love, I'm talking about Labour's media strategy and you're talking about how Corbyn came across in his first few interviews. They're not the same thing. Have a read of these pieces from 2016 to get an understanding of Milne's approach:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-has-toxic-relationship-media-he-s-one-blame-a7024186.html
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2016/07/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-paranoid-style

You can say that his approach is justified by the reaction Corbyn got - you might argue that a bunker mentality developed with good cause. I know a lot of Corbyn loyalists who think that. But I don't think you can argue that there wasn't a bunker mentality.

The press has a fundamental role in a democracy. When Corbyn's team made a decision to see every criticism as being in bad faith, they lost an opportunity to learn and they lost an opportunity to explain. I lost count of the amount of time Channel Four News - hardly a Murdoch stronghold! - said they'd approached Labour for comment but no-one was available. When you are the most unpopular opposition leader in history, you cannot afford to lose those opportunities.