A damning new report has accused The Spectator magazine of waging a sustained campaign of anti-Muslim hostility, with the magazine’s former Political Editor Peter Oborne claiming it has become “one of the most influential British media apologists for bigotry, hatred and racism.”
Published by the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM), No Mere Spectator: Anti-Muslim Hostility in Britain’s Oldest Political Magazine analyses 3,733 articles published between 2018 and 2025 and concludes that one of Britain’s most influential political magazines has consistently portrayed Muslims as a threat to Britain across subjects ranging from immigration and terrorism to religion, culture and civic life.
The report argues that The Spectator “does not merely comment on Muslims and Islam but consistently constructs them as a problem, and that it does so while invoking the language of free speech to place that coverage beyond criticism.”
It adds that its findings are not based on isolated examples but on long-term editorial patterns.
“No single article defines a publication’s editorial culture,” the report says. “The significance of this report lies in the cumulative patterns identified across thousands of articles over an eight-year period.”
It concludes that across themes including immigration, terrorism, antisemitism, religion and civic participation, the magazine repeatedly collapses “any distinction between a diverse global faith and the narrow ideology of its extremists,” while presenting Muslims as “an exceptional population whose presence is associated with threat, conflict and instability.”
Founded almost two centuries ago and owned by hedge fund manager Paul Marshall (also owner of GB News), The Spectator remains one of Britain’s most influential conservative publications.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
Among the Spectator contributors who have repeatedly faced accusations of Islamophobia from Muslim organisations, anti-racism campaigners and media critics are Douglas Murray, Rod Liddle, Melanie Phillips and Toby Young. The writers have generally rejected those accusations, arguing they are criticising Islam or Islamist ideology rather than Muslims.
According to the latest Audit Bureau of Circulations figures, the magazine recorded an average weekly circulation of 103,728 in 2025, comprising 56,152 print copies and 47,576 digital editions.
The magazine says it reaches around 7.3 million monthly page views, has 97,000 subscribers, 944,000 newsletter subscribers, 13.3 million podcast downloads and 1.6 million social media followers.
Peter Oborne
The findings are accompanied by a lengthy foreword from Oborne, who spent years writing for The Spectator and served as its Political Editor.
He begins by celebrating the publication’s history, noting that the magazine, founded in 1828, is the oldest surviving political magazine in the world. He recalls that Prime Ministers including Lloyd George, Ramsay MacDonald and Harold Macmillan wrote for its pages, Boris Johnson later edited it, and literary giants ranging from Graham Greene to T.S. Eliot were among its contributors.
“For the bulk of the last 200 years,” Oborne writes, “The Spectator, a profoundly important voice in British politics, articulated decent and civilised values.”
But he says the publication has undergone a profound transformation.
“In recent years something has changed,” he writes. “Today’s Spectator obsessively mocks Britain’s minority Muslim population. The attacks come week after week, sometimes several in the same edition.”
According to Oborne, the magazine now advances a consistent ideological message that “Muslims are invaders. They don’t belong in this country. They don’t share our values and they threaten our public spaces. Any civic engagement by Muslims in Britain is suspect and should be resisted.”
He says the CfMM report demonstrates how this narrative is developed “through misrepresentation, fabrication, vulgar abuse and conspiracy theories.”
Key findings
A central finding is the sustained delegitimisation of Islamophobia as both a concept and a lived reality. Rather than treating anti-Muslim prejudice as a form of discrimination, The Spectator frequently characterises concern about Islamophobia as an attempt to suppress criticism or restrict free speech, effectively recasting protections against discrimination as threats to liberal values.
Muslim political advocacy, electoral mobilisation and opposition to government policy are repeatedly depicted as evidence of sectarianism or extremism. Activities that would ordinarily be regarded as legitimate democratic participation are consistently framed as uniquely problematic when undertaken by Muslims.
Coverage of terrorism demonstrates a persistent tendency to blur distinctions between Islam, Islamism and extremist movements. Acts of violence are frequently presented as expressions of broader characteristics within Islam itself. The report also identifies repeated associations between Muslim demographic presence and terrorism risk, while violence directed against Muslims is often discussed in ways that minimise the role of anti-Muslim ideology.
And across multiple topic categories, Muslim citizens are repeatedly represented as a demographic, political or security challenge. Muslim identity is treated as predictive of social attitudes or political loyalties in ways not applied to other groups.
CfMM’s research found that 57.4% of the articles examined were rated “biased” or “very biased”. Coverage relating specifically to Islamophobia received the highest bias rating at 72.8%, followed by antisemitism (64.8%), immigration (63%) and conflict and terrorism (60.1%).
Oborne argues that the publication’s importance makes these findings particularly significant.
“The magazine lies at the heart of Britain’s media/political nexus,” he writes. “Its parliamentarian awards and summer party are the Cheltenham Festival and Royal Ascot of the Westminster social season. Its stature confers respectability and helps regularise what can, and what cannot, be said.”
He adds that The Spectator “has become one of the most influential British media apologists for bigotry, hatred and racism: an upmarket version of GB News.”
According to Oborne, the magazine has helped normalise anti-Muslim prejudice across wider political and media discourse.
“I don’t think The Spectator can be accused of directly provoking violence against Muslims,” he writes. “Instead, the magazine has played a role in making racism and bigotry permissible across much mainstream British media and wider public and political discourse. This means that The Spectator plays a particularly significant – and pernicious – role in fermenting Islamophobia.”
Case studies
The report identifies several recurring examples to illustrate its conclusions.
It cites The Spectator‘s reaction to London Mayor Sadiq Khan commissioning a study into London’s landmarks, claiming the magazine drew comparisons with ISIS and the Taliban.
It also highlights coverage of Westminster Council’s approval of a mosque in the former Trocadero building in Piccadilly Circus, which the report says was framed as evidence of “creeping desolation”, “lost opportunities” and “moral and cultural collapse.”
Another example concerns columnist Rod Liddle’s article carrying the sub-heading “There’s not enough Islamophobia in the Conservative Party.” Following public criticism, the magazine later changed the headline.
The report also argues that The Spectator has sought to redefine Islamophobia itself. Rather than accepting the term as describing prejudice directed at Muslims, CfMM says the magazine consistently presents Islamophobia as a political weapon used by Islamists and their allies to silence criticism.
“The Spectator refuses to frame Islamophobia in its accepted sense as an irrational fear, hatred or prejudice directed at Muslims for being Muslim,” the report says. “Instead, it turns the concept on its head.”
The Spectator has not commented on the report so far, but this article will be updated if a comment is provided.
However, it has previously rejected accusations of Islamophobia, characterising past criticisms of its coverage as misreadings and defending its right to critique religion.
