Not everything is about you.
As with most of the criticisms of Corbyn's Labour, there is a smidgen of truth to this. Yes, Labour could be doing a bit more. Yes, it could be making its case more forcefully. By doing so though, does it risk getting associated with a campaign that is essentially internecine warfare between the Cameron leaning Tories and the UKIP leaning Tories, and doing more harm to itself than good in the process? Also yes.
And then we have the media's own agenda when it comes to the EU vote. No bones about it, the actual debate stripped of the histrionics and personalities is as dull as ditchwater. While Alan Johnson's campaign is more in line with Remain in general, the one being ran by the leadership itself is attempting to play it reasonably straight. Which is boring.
It didn't make much difference then that today's speech by Corbyn was easily his most significant intervention yet. He made clear that while Labour is foursquare in favour of the EU, the party is only supporting Remain with the intention of reforming the organisation from within. He will veto the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership if Labour is in power come 2020, and made clear that he fears if Leave wins, whichever Tory ends up leader will gut the workers' rights we owe to the EU. He and the rest of the shadow cabinet won't share a platform with the Tories on the basis of the rest of their policies, and he criticised the idea that Leaving would result automatically in a recession.
In other words, he walked the same line he has throughout. Everyone knows he isn't the biggest fan of the EU and he's not pretending to be. His position is pragmatic: leaving is the wrong choice, but it wouldn't be the biggest disaster in the history of the world. The Tories are a far greater problem, which they are. He isn't going to make the same mistake Scottish Labour did and hitch his party to a campaign that will damage it far more than it will its main constituent.
What then has the media decided is the biggest story from the speech? That "Corbyn supporters", not Labour supporters notice, hissed Laura Kuenssberg when she asked an question. The BBC is about the only organisation giving the speech itself a higher billing. The most ocular proof yet of Labour's misogyny, on top of its obvious antisemitism? Err, not really, as ITV's Chris Ship was booed as well when he questioned whether Corbyn had been half-hearted in his support for Remain up to now. As Corbyn responded, this also depends on the media's decision of what to cover.
And obviously, the reaction of those present to a journalist is far more newsworthy than the contents of yet another lecture from Uncle Tom Corbo. Do I really have to say it's daft to boo or hiss a journalist, as it is, especially one from the BBC? That it is doesn't make that the story, unless hacks have no intention whatsoever of playing by their own rules, which they don't. You don't have to think there is some great get Corbyn campaign to realise portraying him and his supporters as not playing by the accepted rules is much to their advantage with their other anti-Corbyn sources. That one "senior Labour figure" was briefing after the speech that Corbyn "had just sabotaged the Remain campaign", about the most obtuse possible reading you could make of it just sums up how spiteful such people are determined to be.
One of the reasons there has been a change of attitude towards journalists, deserved or not, is they so often seem determined to make everything about them. Criticism of Labour from a media overwhelmingly biased against the party, let alone under the leadership of Corbyn is expected. What's going beyond that is to criticise, and then try to shift the story when Corbyn does precisely what was asked of him. Everything is not always about a self-obsessed media, just as it isn't always about a self-absorbed political class. A few egos being punctured every now and again wouldn't hurt, only it's usually just the one side that gets it in the neck.