4 ms·
I don't read the launch editorial as 'both sides are bad', but as a challenge to what they perceive as a sloppy and pervasive left-wing 'default' opinion. The
by pmyteh 4y ago
I don't read the launch editorial as 'both sides are bad', but as a challenge to what they perceive as a sloppy and pervasive left-wing 'default' opinion. The 'new orthodoxy' language is straight out of the ongoing culture war, in particular.
If they're aiming for a London Review of Books kind of space that makes sense - LRB is decidedly left wing if pretty heterodox and broad-minded - but for the political commentary space I would have thought the Spectator already covered a contrarian conservative perspective fairly well. But then I guess I'm not in their target market.
[Edit: I see they have got Toby Young on their editorial board. Definitely Conservative (as well as conservative), then.]
- elliekelly 4y agoI mean the “both sides bad” angle is flatly stated in the editorial: > Ossified thought and a lack of intellectual rigour are depressing features of all sides of our political and cultural debate. It’s pretty clear they’re trying to dress up their agenda-ed editorials as “common sense” compromise but if middle-of-the-road were truly the publication’s aim I can’t imagine Haskings would have had any interest in funding it.