Though I find your article more nuanced and more willing to appreciate some of Corbyn’s failings than others, I would still raise several issues with you.
You claim Corbyn’s appearance on Press TV is: “in keeping with the general pattern that this article has observed: suggesting a desire on Corbyn’s part to open up dialogue in places where it is ordinarily prohibited.”
That proposition would be more plausible if Corbyn actually used his appearances to criticise Press TV’s complicity in the torture of a journalists and to challenge the Iranian government’s record on human rights and elections — like the “fighter for free speech” he supposedly is. Except he doesn’t do that. He instead remains silent on these. He accepts their cash and does nothing to challenge Press TV’s narrative or highlight Iran’s abuses on the TV. If you can find him on Press TV challenging their narrative, then I’ll concede this point. If not, then his appearances are not constructive and cannot really be considered “meaningful dialogue.” In this sense, it cannot be compared to Kerry’s diplomatic negotiations with Iran.
The excuse that appearing on Press TV was ‘necessary for dialogue’ seems bizarre when you consider that Corbyn repeatedly refuses to engage with the UK media and even refused to appear on a debate organised by The Daily Mirror, on the grounds the DM was “biased.” Why he is willing to stomach an appearance on Press TV for “dialogue,” but not the Daily Mirror? These are double standards surely?
Besides, regardless of his motive, he still appeared on a homophobic, propagandist channel that used info obtained via torture, thus conferring a degree of legitimacy on its activities.