
An anatomy of a modern hit job - cocoflunchy
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/the-scruton-tapes-an-anatomy-of-a-modern-hit-job/
======
sverige
I once spoke to a reporter 25 years ago when I was involved in politics. The
reporter was friendly to my point of view. After reading what I allegedly
said, I resolved to never again agree to an interview with any journalist.

These days, I can't understand why anyone would. They feed on controversy and
there's no real check on their willingness to make up shit for clicks.

~~~
newswriter99
In the 1990's? You'd have thought that'd be far enough removed from the
current journalism climate to still have some level of ethics and
professionalism.

I got into journalism in 2009, three years after Craigslist began killing
print ad revenue and right before clickbait conflagrated from Gawker and its
four (five?) horsemen of the apocalypse.

Journalism is in a sorry state these days. Newspapers of record in towns are
thin as a toothpick and the only people who can survive at the
national/international level tend to be bored upper-middle class rich people
with an agenda (conservative or liberal, doesn't matter). If you don't have an
agenda that aligns with the publisher/editor (and the readership) they don't
want you.

I tried to be a neutral, professional reporter and all it did was leave a bad
taste in my mouth.

~~~
jdougan
Nah, it's been terrible for a long time. It was just harder to notice then,
unless you were the target du jour, because there wan't much in the way of
easily available alternate sources to compare to. In the late 80s in Canada I
got exposed to the same problems when a story I was involved in got distorted
to hell.

------
turc1656
I see that while Scruton was sacked, Eaton was only forced to apologize for
his misrepresentation and had to take down a photo from Twitter. Sounds fair,
right?

------
0815test
Since it looks like so many of the claims about Scruton were simply
fabricated, why haven't there been any consequences for Eaton? Heck, why
doesn't Scruton sue in UK courts, given that Eaton has clearly admitted that
his conduct was malicious in getting Scruton sacked. This would be regarded as
libel even in the U.S., where First Amendment protections on the matter are
quite strong.

~~~
barrkel
The claims about Scruton were truncated quotes and dredging up historical
statements. I don't think they significantly misrepresent his views; rather,
they leave out the subtlety that lets a certain kind of racist think they have
intellectually defensible views.

There's a deeply nasty seam in Tory politics like this. Witness Zac
Goldsmith's attacks on Khan during the London mayor election - it was racist
baiting, and the chap has still gotten re-elected after a brief period out in
the cold. Or Boris always going on about letter boxes and bank robbers. It's
odious, but it's usually done in a way that can be superficially waved off by
psychologically ignored qualifications.

------
pwinnski
One of these things is not like the others...

Many times the issue with pile-ons seems to be that the consequences are out
of line with the initial offense. In this case, however, the offense itself
appears to be a fabrication, a politically-motivated hit job that takes
advantage of the current trend of pile-ons without actually being an example
of them.

------
duxup
It's scary stuff, but I think we're also seeing more orginzations wary not
just of "the contraversy" but of reacting too quickly to it and ending up on
the wrong side.

Twitter I think plays no small part in some of this. The medium is the message
and Twitter only has room for trite statements, outage, and insults, and no
room for discussion, nuance ... and maybe no room for understanding.

------
rahuldottech
This is scary, man. And it could happen to any of us. There was no public
recording of the conversation. Just claims. And this was the result.

This is frightening.

------
MockObject
Why is a Spectator article flagged?

~~~
DanBC
Because it's a dishonest article.

This is better: [https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-
analysis/2019/04/25/scrut...](https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-
analysis/2019/04/25/scruton-is-part-of-an-intellectual-culture-giving-
respectabi)

~~~
0815test
So the fact that Scruton is part of an "intellectual culture" we don't like
and that might somehow be adjacent to views that are _actually_ religiously
intolerant, supremacist etc. (of which "it is literally, _logically_
impossible for any follower of Religion X to assimilate into an open culture
featuring broadly liberal values" is one, of course - that I find genuinely
scary and that we should hope does _not_ become the fashionable, contrarian
position to hold!), should give us license to outright misrepresent what _he_
thinks and remove every nuance in _his_ position? That makes no sense. If
anything, it makes very problematic views look _more_ salient and supported
than they actually are!

------
AllegedAlec
This reads like a pretty good summary of how these pile-ons work. Take a small
bit of what someone said out of context and make it larger than life in a few
steps until everyone talks about that person being the next Hitler.

------
tj-teej
Shameful to see a Douglas Murray article posted on Hacker News...

This guy's whole MO is saying racist/xenophobic things and then complaining
about PC "mob mentality" when people say he's a racist or a xenophobe.

~~~
blub
Why is he a racist and/or xenophobe? If you mean because he's criticising
Islam, then I believe you are wrong.

I read his book "The strange death of Europe: immigration, identity, Islam"
and found it to be balanced, copiously referenced and frankly very scary.
There is currently no other group of people on this planet that I know of that
is hunting down the people they dislike and executes them. Maybe the Mexican
cartels.

~~~
tj-teej
The book’s title implies Muslim immigration is the death of Europe, that’s
pretty xenophobic.

He refuses to call Tommy Robinson a racist, that’s pretty racist.

If there’s ever an argument and race is a component, you’re not going to find
him on the right side. He tip-toes around explicit racist statements on
purpose but when looked at broadly I think he’s pretty clearly helping racist
causes, I don’t think it’s an accident, and I don’t think he minds.

Frankly it’s a bit telling that the only other comparable group to jihadi
terrorists you can think about are Mexican. You should read some criticism of
Murray, read some left media. I think you’d be surprised that it’s not all the
PC nonsense that Murray and co complain about.

~~~
blub
Wish I could reply to you at length, but I'm having difficulty navigating the
standards of political correctness of those of us with the ability to flag
posts.

Here's to second chances: Muslim immigration is not the death of Europe. The
death of Europe, according to the author is accepting too many immigrants that
do not share the values of equality and respect towards women, other
minorities, or even the rule of law.

And then not enforcing said law when they break it, in order not to appear
racist, thereby leading to a lack of confidence from the general population
and massive shifts in political power to nationalist or extremist parties.

There's much to be said about this topic and I would do it in a polite and
respectable way, but from my discussion with a moderator I think it would not
be welcome. Somehow we're stuck with mostly being able to say positive things
or else being labeled despicable.

------
FearNotDaniel
For balance, bearing mind the Spectator is strongly partisan, I'm providing a
left-wing newspaper's account of the same situation [0] and George Eaton's own
unequivocal apology over the way he used social media ("a serious error of
judgement which I profoundly regret") [1].

I don't think either side is fairly representing the situation, I think it's
most probable that Scruton probably _is_ a racist old homophobe and Eaton
probably _is_ a manipulative, cocky little twat. But at least he apologized,
which is pretty rare in these tiresome mud-slinging situations.

[0]
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/21/david-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/21/david-
lammy-roger-scruton-rush-damn-our-opponents)

[1] [https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/04/my-interview-roger-
scru...](https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/04/my-interview-roger-scruton)

~~~
0815test
That article from the Grauniad is saying very little that's directly relevant,
except for a claim that Hungarians should _not_ be concerned about people from
Muslim cultures immigrating there, and potentially being less-than-loyal to
their surrounding society. That would seem to be a matter of opinion, at the
very least. Hardly something that we should "call out" Scruton on, much less
use as a pretext to fabricate fake news about Scruton's quite nuanced views on
this and other matters.

~~~
barrkel
Just s/Islamic/Jewish/ and repeat things back and see how they sound.

We've been here before.

~~~
0815test
So we should focus on "how things sound", to the exclusion of any judgment
about the actual facts on the ground? That can't be right. Culture matters,
even many left-wingers will agree about this. Muslim cultures, by and large
(there are of course all sorts of exceptions, among which Malaysia is
especially notable) have rather specific problems with the values and norms
that are commonly enforced there, that aren't even related to the religion of
Islam per se. And Scruton is clearly aware of this, so by disregarding these
things you're essentially misrepresenting his actual views.

~~~
barrkel
They said the same thing about Catholics, you know. I find it fucking
outrageous that you think it's acceptable to demonize a group like that.

~~~
yellowapple
Criticism != demonization, you know. I find it fucking outrageous that you
think they're equivalent.

------
osullivj
Ted Honderich (UCL philosopher) on Scruton: "the unthinking man's thinking
man"

~~~
turc1656
I don't know anything about Honderich, but that sounds like a very cliche
insult that is typical of when someone doesn't want to actually take the time
to respond to someone else's viewpoint in detail so it's far easier to simply
dismiss with this type of insult. Seems like the intellectuals' equivalent of
"he's a racist/sexist/etc." \- the implication being that since that label has
been thrown out there we no longer need to discuss what was actually said by
the person.

