3 ms·

30 years ago that would have been a fair assessment, but no longer. > The Spectator, once suavely edited, now serves as a fraternity house for Douglas Murray,

by yrro 4y ago

30 years ago that would have been a fair assessment, but no longer. > The Spectator, once suavely edited, now serves as a fraternity house for Douglas Murray, Toby Young, James Delingpole and Rod Liddle; pummelling Muslims and high-fiving on Brexit, these right-wing bros are to the posh periodicals what Jeremy Clarkson was to the BBC. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v39/n18/pankaj-mishra/what-is-great-about-ourselves https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v39/n18/pankaj-mishra/what-i... > It used to be libertarian, cheeky. Now it’s like the Daily Mail. The difference is, I suppose, that its old spirit came from superiority. Now it comes from resentment and disappointment. > The Spectator has become a sounding board for resentment, amplifying the catastrophist mentality that has gripped the right in Britain and the US. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2019/11/why-spectator-tolerates-intolerable https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2019/11/why-spec... > Spectator and its Tory MP editor may face charges over Taki race rant > Threats against black lawyer after article [editor Boris] Johnson admits it should not have carried https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/feb/28/uk.pressandpublishing https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/feb/28/uk.pressand... Rod Liddle wrote in a 2018 column: "If you are an unpleasant person who enjoys macabre entertainment, wander down to Mile End and watch the women in full burka trying to cross the A11. That’s always good for a laugh." https://bylinetimes.com/2021/11/30/new-study-highlights-anti-muslim-bigotry-of-the-spectator-magazine/ https://bylinetimes.com/2021/11/30/new-study-highlights-anti... > A 2021 study by the Muslim Council of Britain's Centre for Media Monitoring that looked at media coverage of Muslims and Islam in 34 publications found that The Spectator had the highest percentage of articles judged "antagonistic" to Muslims, 37.3% of all articles which mentioned the religion, and the highest proportion of articles which the study judged misrepresented Muslims and/or Islam, one in four. The Spectator also had the second highest negative bias of any publication studied, with 10.9% of relevant articles "very biased" (only Christian Today with 11.3% "very biased" was worse). https://cfmm.org.uk/resources/publication/cfmm-report-british-medias-coverage-of-muslims-and-islam-2018-2020-launched/ https://cfmm.org.uk/resources/publication/cfmm-report-britis... And so on. Plenty more quotes and citations in https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Spectator#Controversies https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Spectator#Controversies.

mellosouls 4y ago
Rational Wiki is a far-left source that covers the stuff they can't shoehorn into the not-exactly-centrist wikipedia. (Update, original parent comment was just Rational Wiki)
- yrro 4y ago
  Whatever Rational Wiki is or is not, the statements they make about the spectator are all backed up by citations (some of which I lifted and inserted into my original comment). You either didn't read the page, or you think that the cited sources and their opinions are "far-left".
  - mellosouls 4y ago
    I read the page before posting, and (as expected) saw a list of cherry-picked instances which hardly established (compared to the thousands of articles the Spectator has published) a particularly right-wing, let alone far-right tone. That you have then copied and pasted those links into the comment after I replied, doesn't strengthen the case, or alter the irony (my original point) of using a far-left source to bolster the original silly claim.
hojop 4y ago
These are all opinion articles from people who disagree with the political stances of the Spectator.
- yrro 4y ago
  > A 2021 study by the Muslim Council of Britain's Centre for Media Monitoring that looked at media coverage of Muslims and Islam in 34 publications found that The Spectator had the highest percentage of articles judged "antagonistic" to Muslims, 37.3% of all articles which mentioned the religion, and the highest proportion of articles which the study judged misrepresented Muslims and/or Islam, one in four. The Spectator also had the second highest negative bias of any publication studied, with 10.9% of relevant articles "very biased" (only Christian Today with 11.3% "very biased" was worse). These are facts, not opinions. https://cfmm.org.uk/resources/publication/cfmm-report-british-medias-coverage-of-muslims-and-islam-2018-2020-launched/ https://cfmm.org.uk/resources/publication/cfmm-report-britis... It is a fact that the Spectator published an article, "The alt-right isn't all wrong" by James Delingpole in which he defended his "friend and colleague" Milo Yiannopoulos. It is a fact that Delingpole downplayed the alt-right's antisemitism and racism because (in his opinion) it was "confected and insincere". It is a fact that Delingpole cited Carl "Sargon of Akkad" Benjamin's defence of the white genocide conspiracy theory. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-alt-right-isn-t-all-wrong/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-alt-right-isn-t-all-...

by yrro 4y ago

mellosouls 4y ago

Rational Wiki is a far-left source that covers the stuff they can't shoehorn into the not-exactly-centrist wikipedia. (Update, original parent comment was just Rational Wiki)

yrro 4y ago
Whatever Rational Wiki is or is not, the statements they make about the spectator are all backed up by citations (some of which I lifted and inserted into my original comment). You either didn't read the page, or you think that the cited sources and their opinions are "far-left".
- mellosouls 4y ago
  I read the page before posting, and (as expected) saw a list of cherry-picked instances which hardly established (compared to the thousands of articles the Spectator has published) a particularly right-wing, let alone far-right tone. That you have then copied and pasted those links into the comment after I replied, doesn't strengthen the case, or alter the irony (my original point) of using a far-left source to bolster the original silly claim.

hojop 4y ago

These are all opinion articles from people who disagree with the political stances of the Spectator.

yrro 4y ago
> A 2021 study by the Muslim Council of Britain's Centre for Media Monitoring that looked at media coverage of Muslims and Islam in 34 publications found that The Spectator had the highest percentage of articles judged "antagonistic" to Muslims, 37.3% of all articles which mentioned the religion, and the highest proportion of articles which the study judged misrepresented Muslims and/or Islam, one in four. The Spectator also had the second highest negative bias of any publication studied, with 10.9% of relevant articles "very biased" (only Christian Today with 11.3% "very biased" was worse). These are facts, not opinions. https://cfmm.org.uk/resources/publication/cfmm-report-british-medias-coverage-of-muslims-and-islam-2018-2020-launched/ https://cfmm.org.uk/resources/publication/cfmm-report-britis... It is a fact that the Spectator published an article, "The alt-right isn't all wrong" by James Delingpole in which he defended his "friend and colleague" Milo Yiannopoulos. It is a fact that Delingpole downplayed the alt-right's antisemitism and racism because (in his opinion) it was "confected and insincere". It is a fact that Delingpole cited Carl "Sargon of Akkad" Benjamin's defence of the white genocide conspiracy theory. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-alt-right-isn-t-all-wrong/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-alt-right-isn-t-all-...