Of twitter traps and modern minefields
I am totally opposed to Anti-Semitism, homophobia, and stirring up hatred against Muslims.
These things should be strongly discouraged, and when those who seek to hold public office appear to be promoting hatred, it is not surprising that people should ask whether they are the right people for the job.
The fact that Anti-Semitism, Homophobia or prejudice against Muslims are rightly regarded as very harmful makes it all the more important that when people are accused of any of these things we take a good hard look at the evidence. In too many cases, alas, such accusations have been backed up by evidence and where this is the case appropriate action must be taken - there can be no place in the Conservative party, for instance, for the promotion of hatred against Jews, Muslims, or gay people.
"The Scruton tapes: an anatomy of a modern hit job"
that after listening to the tapes of the interview with Sir Roger and hearing what was actually said, Murray believes that there was more than a degree of highly selective quotation, used to create a twitter bandwagon which rolled right over him before people stopped to consider how accurate the alletations against the philosopher actually were.
For example. it was suggested that Scruton had been racist about the Chinese. What he appears to have actually said was not so much racist against Chinese people but concerned about the human rights record of the Chinese government. - and one of the main concerns Scruton expressed about that government was their putting China's Uighur Muslims into concentration camps to "re-educate" them.
That comment which was omitted from all the social media hype about what a bigot Scruton supposedly is, presumably because it would undermine the picture being presented of his views about Muslims.
When Scruton was fired as an unpaid government adviser on architecture because of the New Statesman interview, the journalist who had interviewed him, and started the social media storm, George Eaton, who posted on Instagram (and subsequently deleted) a photo of himself online drinking champagne. His caption was ‘The feeling when you get right-wing racist and homophobe Roger Scruton sacked as a Tory government adviser.’
It would appear that the concern about the way the New Statesman itself handled the interview after the tapes were released has made the magazine itself uneasy.
Jason Cowley, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘The New Statesman takes journalistic good practice seriously. As any responsible media organisation would, we are conducting an internal review in light of allegations of misrepresentation. George Eaton has already apologised for his behaviour on social media and his thoughtless Instagram post, which he deleted.’
But the real problem isn't the Instagram post. It is that anyone who gets remotely near the public eye has to be extremely careful not just about what they actually say, but about how it could be presented.
These things should be strongly discouraged, and when those who seek to hold public office appear to be promoting hatred, it is not surprising that people should ask whether they are the right people for the job.
The fact that Anti-Semitism, Homophobia or prejudice against Muslims are rightly regarded as very harmful makes it all the more important that when people are accused of any of these things we take a good hard look at the evidence. In too many cases, alas, such accusations have been backed up by evidence and where this is the case appropriate action must be taken - there can be no place in the Conservative party, for instance, for the promotion of hatred against Jews, Muslims, or gay people.
It is equally important that we do not rush to judgement and assume everyone accused is guilty, or allow social media to become a kangaroo court which can hound innocent people out of their jobs.
I have always disagreed with the philosopher Sir Roger Scruton about many things, and even after reading about what he actually said in his now infamous interview with the New Statesman, I consider some of the words he used to have been at best unwise.
Nevertheless, Douglas Murray makes a strong case here in his Spectator piece,
"The Scruton tapes: an anatomy of a modern hit job"
that after listening to the tapes of the interview with Sir Roger and hearing what was actually said, Murray believes that there was more than a degree of highly selective quotation, used to create a twitter bandwagon which rolled right over him before people stopped to consider how accurate the alletations against the philosopher actually were.
For example. it was suggested that Scruton had been racist about the Chinese. What he appears to have actually said was not so much racist against Chinese people but concerned about the human rights record of the Chinese government. - and one of the main concerns Scruton expressed about that government was their putting China's Uighur Muslims into concentration camps to "re-educate" them.
That comment which was omitted from all the social media hype about what a bigot Scruton supposedly is, presumably because it would undermine the picture being presented of his views about Muslims.
When Scruton was fired as an unpaid government adviser on architecture because of the New Statesman interview, the journalist who had interviewed him, and started the social media storm, George Eaton, who posted on Instagram (and subsequently deleted) a photo of himself online drinking champagne. His caption was ‘The feeling when you get right-wing racist and homophobe Roger Scruton sacked as a Tory government adviser.’
It would appear that the concern about the way the New Statesman itself handled the interview after the tapes were released has made the magazine itself uneasy.
Jason Cowley, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘The New Statesman takes journalistic good practice seriously. As any responsible media organisation would, we are conducting an internal review in light of allegations of misrepresentation. George Eaton has already apologised for his behaviour on social media and his thoughtless Instagram post, which he deleted.’
But the real problem isn't the Instagram post. It is that anyone who gets remotely near the public eye has to be extremely careful not just about what they actually say, but about how it could be presented.
Comments