So the Corbyn camp's new press strategy - namely, there is no press strategy - is going down quite badly with the press.
This isn't so surprising and I suspect that it's going to be due a rethink sooner rather than later, but it's worth asking - why is it that the new Labour leadership think they're better off barely speaking to the press at all?
Well, perhaps this column by Danny Finkelstein in today's Times will give us an insight.
The general topic is Corbyn's personal political philosophy. In considering the Labour leader's outlook, Danny names Kruschev; the Black Panthers; Huey Newton; Stalin; Mao; Castro; Che Guevara; Ho Chi Minh; Pol Pot; Hezbollah; Hamas; Osama Bin Laden; Iraqi insurgents; Isis; Sinn Fein; the IRA; al Qaeda; Hugo Chavez; "homophobes, beheaders and anti-semites".
Not to be outdone, the opposite page features fellow opinion creature Oliver Kamm dragging the Nazis into his febrile thoughts upon a rumour that Corbyn may wear a white poppy to the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day.
Kamm isn't talking about any cast-iron statement that this will happen, you understand. He's talking about a mere rumour, one that even he concedes is likely false.
Nonetheless, the mere existence of a rumour that Corbyn might wear a white poppy is all that Kamm requires to consider him in close proximity to various World War II pacifists; the armed forces of Nazi Germany; the British Union of Fascists; Oswald Mosley; actively pro-Nazi organisations and "the ferociously anti-semitic Marquess of Tavistock".
Which, taken together with Danny's burblings, may or may not leave Times readers with the impression that Jeremy Corbyn himself is a giant, genocidal Nazi Communist.
And remember - these guys aren't rent-a-denunciation hacks, dragged in to condemn this or that in fiery tones as the situation demands. This isn't the Sun, putting Corbyn in a bikini and boo-hissing him in a style that's accessible to eight-year-olds.
Finkelstein is an associate editor of the Times, a veritable pillar of respectable British journalism. Kamm, tool though he is, is the paper's lead editorial writer. Together, they sit smack-bang in the middle of the amorphous blob of pompous stodge that is centre-right British opinion, in the pages of the nation's paper of record.
But let's be clear - these musings about Mao and Hitler haven't been prompted
by any actual news events, other than the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is now
leader of the Labour Party. There's no pretense that these pieces are responses to any particular action or statement, and none that any new event justifies their hysterical tone. They exist, just because of who Corbyn is.
Now, we might say that this is all Labour's fault for electing the chair of Stop the War as leader, and we might well have a point. Even so, I think it'd take a bit of a hard fucking neck for e.g. Danny to claim that circumstances have forced him beyond his will to ramble on about Pol Pot's proper place in Corbyn's political thought. Anyone pulling this kind of cavalcade of cartoonish evil out of their backside in a political discussion knows exactly what he's doing, and only insults your intelligence by claiming otherwise.
Still though, this is probably why the Corbyn team have decided to avoid the press wherever possible. Papers like the Times, led by determinedly ridiculous hacks like this pair, managed to portray Ed Miliband - a timorous-looking politics-bot with a particular gift for vacuity and blandness - as some kind of great, stomping stegosaurus of rampant communist destruction.
The new Labour leadership seem to have looked at that, and then at these havering tools, and thought - what's the point in even speaking to them, if all they can do is call you names and compare you to war criminals? And the Labour leaders may even be right.
They probably aren't, of course, but it never hurts to see things in their proper context.