The Spectator’s Brazen Hypocrisy Over Russell Brand
The magazine attacks rivals for enabling Russell Brand while ignoring its own historical support.
1Editorial Selective Amnesia
The Spectator has aggressively criticized left-wing media for enabling Russell Brand, yet it ignores its own history. In March 2013, then-editor Fraser Nelson proudly published Brand’s work, boasting of its high readership. The magazine now attacks rivals for similar past associations, demonstrating a clear case of selective institutional memory regarding its own editorial record.
2Contradictory Standards
While current contributors like Jawad Iqbal demand that Brand’s enablers face consequences, the magazine maintains its own problematic associations. Michael Gove, the current editor, allowed Taki Theodoracopulos to return to the publication in 2023. Taki had contributed for 47 years before his conviction for attempted rape, highlighting a stark inconsistency in moral standards.
3Historical Editorial Context
In 2013, The Spectator published Brand’s article on addiction, which mirrored the same tone as his New Statesman piece. Hugo Rifkind, writing for the magazine at the time, acknowledged Brand’s charisma while noting his intellectual laziness. Despite this, the magazine now frames such past engagement as a unique failing of its political rivals.
4Hollow Moral Outrage
The magazine’s coverage of the #MeToo movement reveals a consistent pattern of skepticism toward sexual assault allegations. In 2017, Joanna Williams suggested the movement was driven by a desire for victimhood status. Recently, she was commissioned again to discuss consent, reinforcing a editorial stance that often prioritizes questioning survivors over supporting them.
5Internal Conduct Issues
The Spectator’s critique of others' behavior contrasts sharply with its own internal output. In 2024, theatre critic Lloyd Evans published a column that sexualized a female professor after attending her lecture. This unsolicited sexual review, followed by a description of visiting a sex worker, directly contradicts the magazine’s stated concerns regarding flippant attitudes toward sex.
6Reader Sentiment and Influence
Comments on recent articles reveal that many readers now view the allegations against Brand as an establishment conspiracy. This reader sentiment reflects years of editorial framing that has consistently challenged mainstream narratives on sexual misconduct. The magazine’s output has arguably cultivated an environment where survivors are frequently met with deep public skepticism.
7The Role of Hypocrisy
The Spectator frequently targets Guardian columnists like Owen Jones and George Monbiot for their past praise of Brand. However, it fails to apply the same scrutiny to its own contributors who engaged with him. This selective targeting serves to deflect attention from the magazine’s own role in fostering the culture Brand once inhabited.
8Institutional Accountability Gap
The Spectator remains unwilling to reckon with its own history of enabling figures like Brand or Taki. By focusing exclusively on the perceived failures of political rivals, the magazine avoids a necessary internal audit. This refusal to acknowledge its own complicity undermines its moral authority when discussing the broader implications of sexual misconduct.
Original article: The New European — The Spectator’s Brazen Hypocrisy Over Russell Brand