Even by its own standards, Twitter has been an asylum of late, with a lynch mob going after our associate editor Douglas Murray. An interview he gave months ago has been selectively edited and republished to misrepresent him and, in effect, make out that he was encouraging riots. This is how Twitter works. I don’t follow Alastair Campbell, but it seems he has been telling me that unless I condemn Douglas then I myself would apparently ‘stand condemned’. By no less a moral authority, it seems, then Campbell himself.
Andrew Neil has rightly pointed out that hell really will freeze over before a Twitterstorm makes The Spectator turn on a star columnist who has brought so much to the magazine over so many years. The idea that we would do so now, at Campbell’s behest – or that of his fellow trolls – is laughable. Andrew has also banned advertisers who complain about our columnists. Hopefully the message has gone out by now that The Spectator isn’t edited by Twitter.
The Spectator will not be bowing to the mob. Not now, not ever.
I never normally refer to Twitter madness in articles here: acting on the advice of Douglas himself. ‘Never waste time bouncing off the effluent of morons’, he wrote in one of his superb Spectator columns. ‘So, for instance, it is a rule among British columnists never to use the term “Owen Jones” in an article. It is too easy. Every couple of hours there will be another gaseous eruption.’ We have a house rule in The Spectator: not to run articles on people who live on Twitter: Katie Hopkins, Campbell, Jones, etc.
But this time is different. When I went through my inbox this morning, I found emails from many readers who could see a character assassination attempt in the offing and who wanted to defend Murray. We only print letters in the magazine in response to articles, but we had so many here that I thought I should publish one. It is from Justin Stebbing, a renowned oncologist, and resonated with me because it sums up my own feelings – and, I suspect, a great many of our readers.
I am writing to express my unwavering support for Douglas Murray, whose insightful and articulate commentary has been a beacon of clarity and reason in today’s complex political landscape. His contributions to The Spectator have consistently demonstrated a profound understanding of global issues, particularly the intricacies of Middle Eastern politics and the defence of Israel.
His steadfast support for Israel is not only commendable but also essential in an era where misinformation and bias often cloud public discourse. His writings provide a balanced perspective that champions truth and moral clarity, qualities that are increasingly rare yet desperately needed. His ability to dissect and articulate the nuances of geopolitical conflicts with precision and empathy is a testament to his intellectual rigor and commitment to justice.
In his recent works, including his speeches and articles, he has eloquently defended Israel’s right to exist and protect its citizens against terrorism. His stance is rooted in a deep understanding of historical and contemporary contexts, which he conveys with both passion and reason. As he aptly stated, ‘It’s moral hygiene to try and clean some of this up. When 99 lies are being told and one truth, the truth will eventually win.’ This commitment to truth is what sets him apart as a commentator and public intellectual.
His broader contributions to political commentary, such as his critiques of western self-laceration and his defence of western values, highlight his role as a crucial voice in contemporary debates. His ability to engage with a wide range of topics, from the rise of extremism to the cultural and political challenges facing the West, underscores his versatility and depth as a thinker.
The attempts by political figures like Campbell to silence him not only undermine the principles of free speech and open debate but also seek to deprive the public of a valuable perspective that challenges prevailing narratives.
It is imperative that we stand by commentators like Murray, who courageously speak the truth, even when it is unpopular. His brilliance, clarity of thought, and unwavering commitment to truth make him an indispensable asset to your publications and to the broader conversation on critical global issues.
Amen to all that. Douglas wrote the definitive piece about Twitter lynch mobs when he exonerated Roger Scruton by securing the raw footage of the interview that had been so egregiously misrepresented by George Eaton. His scoop and cover piece changed the debate: it was the high water mark of Twitter character assassination because Murray had calmly taken this madness apart and it stood exposed. So did those who get sucked into them. We saw how partial quotes can be maliciously assembled to smear – and how easily a mob is assembled to condemn.
His column last week, incidentally – looking at the deprivation levels and local economic dysfunction in rioting areas – was thoughtful, original and generated more new subscriptions than any other article we published this year. That’s proof of just how utterly detached these pointless Twitterstorms are from the real world.
It’s almost exactly 15 years since I first became editor and was told about Douglas by the writer Ruth Dudley Edwards who said he was one of the best young essayists thrown up by our country for quite some time. I’d remove ‘one of’. So, sorry, Alastair Campbell et al: The Spectator will not be bowing to the mob. Not now, not ever.
