The point I was trying to make, and maybe I made it badly, is that people seem to me to be picking up the aspect of this story which the Daily Mail has chosen to push, ie the fact that Corbyn apparently* said he doesn't consider himself to be wealthy.
If he did say it, it was at the least a careless thing to say, but the context in which he said it, speaking about a new policy to fund the arts, makes it rather different, IMO, than if he'd said something along the lines of "I don't consider myself to be wealthy, and if I can manage on my £137k salary, I don't know why those on minimum wage/zero hour contracts can't do just as well". Except I'm not sure that the DM would have chosen to highlight that in quite the same way.
But behind the business about whether JC is wealthy or not, there is another possible story about a new policy he's announcing. Maybe this arts-supporting policy is good; maybe it's not. Maybe there is even some way in which a discussion about it could support a wider discussion about whether Corbynite social-democracy is really all that its supporters are claiming. But because everyone has followed the line of least resistance, pointing out the obvious fact that whether Corbyn considers himself wealthy or not, he certainly is by most people's standards, any chance of having that discussion has been lost.
And clearly anyone is allowed to point that out and to focus on that, I just find it a little disappointing at times.
* and I say apparently because as far as I've seen, the Mail is the only source of this story, and I don't think it's impossible that they have distorted the quote to fit their agenda.