How is Michael Gove settling in as editor of the Spectator? Not so well, it seems. Having published a bizarre piece by Jonathan Sacerdoti that painted Tommy Robinson’s fascist London march as a day out at a village garden fete, he now finds himself in hot water over a chummy interview with a pair of alleged sexual abusers.
The interview in question was with the notorious misogynists Andrew and Tristan Tate, and Gove’s deputy editor Freddie Gray was sent to Bucharest to put the questions. Gray immediately made his tough, no-holds barred interview style clear when he asked his readers rhetorically: “Are the Tates really that bad, though?”
Suggested Reading
Michael Gove’s history lesson
The alleged survivors of the Tates’ abuse made their answer clear in a statement responding to Gray’s article: “These are men who UK authorities have authorised 21 charges against for alleged crimes including rape, actual bodily harm and human trafficking.”
“How can the Spectator think it’s appropriate to interview these men but fail to ask them one question about the allegations against them?” It’s a very good question, and one that Gove, in his role as editor, might wish to ponder.
But Gray was completely untroubled by such issues of journalistic practice. “The Tates are confident,” he wrote in his fawning interview, that, “all other charges will melt away,” adding: “Perhaps I am gullible, or toxically male, but I can’t help believing them.”
Any editor worth their salt would spike a piece that dismissed rape allegations in this way and call the writer in for a bollocking. But Gove, it seems, is not so fussed. Perhaps his ethical radar is a little faulty after all those years spent in politics. Or perhaps he really thinks the Tates are the sort of chaps Spectator readers would like to have round for tea.
Most popular
Palestine Action: we are not the terrorists
Nerd’s Eye View: 13 things you need to know about the Shipping Forecast
Smash the populists, Keir
How Tommy Robinson could become PM
