The Scruton Affair... Continued

The latest journalist to enter the Scruton/Eaton affaire is Peter Wilby, former New Statesman editor and currently a columnist and the “readers’ editor” for the magazine. Whatever you think of the debate about Eaton’s interview with Scruton, Wilby’s article is a deeply disappointing intervention.

First, one of the most puzzling aspects of the whole controversy is that Cowley and Eaton have been remarkably silent about the whole issue, both in print and on social media. Cowley has tweeted about two articles critical of the Eaton piece, but has made no further comment on social media about Eaton or the interview. Eaton wrote one piece for the NS website on 12th April, which was deeply misleading, and has since said nothing. Both re-tweeted the full transcript of the interview when it was posted on the NS website on 26 April though Eaton did not comment on the disparities between this transcript and his original article. Wilby does not comment on any of this.

Does Wilby think Cowley should have supported his writer? He doesn’t say. Does he think Cowley or Eaton should have defended the interview more strenuously? What does Wilby think of the errors in Eaton’s defence on 12 April which were exposed when the full transcript was published? We are not told.  

Second, Wilby writes, “After the story broke, the NS began an internal inquiry, which is ongoing.” Eaton’s interview with Scruton was published on 10th April, more than three weeks before Wilby’s piece appeared. In that time many journalists have had their say. How can it have taken the NS so long to conclude their “internal inquiry” and why doesn’t Wilby think this is worth asking? This has been a huge blow to the reputation of the magazine. One of its two deputy Editors has been widely attacked (Eaton originally retweeted much of this but nearly all of it has disappeared from his Twitter timeline). A speedy response was surely essential. A clear and speedy response from the NS was called for. Wilby, as “readers’ editor”, says nothing about when the internal inquiry might reach a decision.  

Third, Wilby draws on some controversial issues of his own time at the NS which leads him to claim “some empathy with both sides in the present case.” Why is a disgusting antisemitic cover which Wilby commissioned as editor relevant to the Scruton issue? Why do either of the cases Wilby refers to lead him to claim “empathy” with either side? Indeed, what is the relevance of any of this?  You could argue instead that decades of experience as a journalist and editor would enable him to offer a dispassionate and judicious view. Readers don’t want “empathy”. We want a clear and thoughtful reading.

What is most extraordinary of all, though, is that in a two-page article Wilby only gives two paragraphs to the published interview itself, in which he sits carefully on the fence (“It is more difficult to judge the extent to which the published interview was misleading”). He spends some time on Eaton’s tweets and Instagram post. “Eaton was clearly at fault in his Instagram post”, “One tweet … was misleading”, “The other tweets took words somewhat [sic] out of context.” This is not the definitive judgment NS readers might have expected after almost a month. We then have just one paragraph on the interview itself and another on how it was set up, whether Scruton, at the time, was happy with it, and some throat-clearing about what readers might expect (or not) from something called an Encounter and whether 900 words was enough for such an interview. Wilby’s attack on The Spectator in his final paragraph is desultory.   

Look at the responses on TV, radio, on Twitter and in other publications, and you will see that many leading journalists have argued that Eaton deliberately took key phrases out of context to misrepresent Scruton’s arguments. Eaton’s Twitter timeline offered a helpful summary of these comments but they have now been deleted. The most devastating attack was by Douglas Murray in The Spectator (“The Scruton tapes”, 27 April, pp 12-13). Wilby makes no sustained attempt to refute these charges. These are serious charges which have harmed Eaton’s reputation and both he and Scruton deserve a more careful and thoughtful reading than Wilby offers here.