This is an example of how not to do this. https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1247198623076683781

You just quote what Lammy says and he doesn't care, his supporters don't care, it gives him agency in the narrative and allows him to buck up his own (fraudulent) self-conception as someone who 'tells it like it is' owning le gammons.

Does the Guardian say "Angry Andrew Sabisky says xyz...." no it says "Andrew Sabisky History of Discredited Pseudo-Science of Eugenics."

So what you do, is create a broader narrative, an "issue" like "Pampered Black People" and then say "Labour Justice Sec. Troubling Ignorance on Pampered Black People."

See when its phrased like this the ideological content is implicit, its bound up in a wider narrative outside the story, it looks like you are just reporting facts.

The Right's failure at non-anon propaganda comes down to not getting this and focusing on "owning the libs" on the scale of individual arguments. Those who trumpet their media savvyness as opposed to "facts and logic" people are often just as big perpetrators.