No One Left To Cry To*
The Nick Cohen story is just one example of silence about alleged harassment in an industry that protects its friends.
Previously:
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
…
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
— from The 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous
The British press does not “make amends” about itself; it dissembles, lies, hides, covers up, excuses, and denies. Despite the trade collapse precipitated by the national act of self-harm that is Brexit — a lie itself enthusiastically embraced by much of the press — newspapers’ gaslight export businesses are flourishing.
The latest person to benefit from the piss-yellow glow of that gaslight is Nick Cohen. The former Observer columnist turned Spectator mainstay and Substack VIP — 🤮 — was the subject of a long-awaited New York Times investigation into his alleged sexually harassing behaviour and the failure of outlets including The Financial Times and Private Eye to address the credible statements of multiple women about groping, unwanted image sharing, and other alleged abuses of power and influence.
This newsletter hasn’t failed to report those accusations. When Cohen left The Observer with glowing tributes from his editors, a claim he was stepping down due to ‘ill health’ (groper’s RSI can debilitating), and a big pile of recommendations for his Substack from people who claim they know better, I wrote about exactly what was going on.
The Guardian/Observer ‘investigation’ into Cohen has never been published and was most likely neither undertaken seriously nor concluded to anyone’s satisfaction. Cohen received a large financial settlement to fuck off without too much trouble and statements about his departure were agreed between him and the editorial leadership at The Guardian/Observer.
Cohen’s nickname — ‘the octopus’ — and statements about his alleged actions were well known for years and yet outlets continued to commission him to write sanctimonious and moralising cant.
The reference in the NYT story to Private Eye — where Cohen had a long tour of duty as the Street of Shame writer ‘ratbiter’ — ignoring the story of his departure from The Observer and writing to readers to excuse it is based on my reporting but despite a promise that I would be credited, there is no such credit. That’s how big papers roll.
However, as soon as the NYT published its story I was approached by multiple sources about stories of harassment at other British news organisations which have gone unexamined by papers including the NYT. I’ll be working with Byline to investigate that evidence because it needs a level of legal cover I simply don’t have when writing this newsletter solo.
It is legal caution that requires me to use the word “alleged” when discussing the behaviour of Nick Cohen. I believe the accusers but must print this denial from Cohen that appears in the NYT story:
In a phone interview, Mr. Cohen said he did not have the “faintest idea” about Ms. Siegle’s accusation and questioned why she had waited so long to report it. He said the conversation with the copy editor was “joking” among friends. He blamed their accusations on a campaign by his critics, including advocates for Russia and for transgender rights.
Informed that seven women had come forward with sexual misconduct complaints, Mr. Cohen exclaimed, “Oh, God.”
“I assume it’s stuff I was doing when I was drunk,” said Mr. Cohen, a recovering alcoholic.
In a subsequent email, Mr. Cohen did not respond to specific accusations. “I have written at length about my alcoholism. I went clean seven years ago in 2016,” he said. “I look back on my addicted life with deep shame.”I have known addicts all my life — one in my family (now deceased) and several friends (some both working with and on their addictions now, others also gone) and Cohen leaning on his own addiction is grotesque. Some of the alleged incidents occurred after it is suggested that he “went clean”, so what explains his alleged filthy conduct then?
The answer is, of course, that other columnists ‘explain’ his behaviour because they consider him a friend and political ally. The machine has already whirred into life to bat away questions about not only Cohen’s actions but those of editors and friends who excused, enabled, and covered up. Look at Cohen’s only excuses beyond alcoholism — a cabal of trans rights activists and their entirely natural bedfellows, the homophobic klepto-state power of the Russian Federation, have been colluding to make Nick Cohen grab women and send them unwanted sexual messages. That is the only explanation.
I write this not as a morally pure or entirely beyond reproach individual, but as one who is, while not an addict, willing to make amends and give apologies without extensive caveats. Nick Cohen will be given a chance to tell his ‘truth’ to some tame journalist pal soon; the NYT story will, as it already has been, be framed as a cancellation, an assassination, a traduction of a ‘good’ man. And the women? Well, the British press only listens to victims when it is convenient.
The victims of the British press’ collusion with terrible people — especially terrible men — are to be mocked, minimised, and made to seem like kooks out for a buck or some misguided fame. I’ve said it once here but I’ll repeat it for emphasis: I believe the women.
I also believe that Nick Cohen is being protected by columnists and editors whose commitment to attacking trans people trumps their purported belief in protecting women. It’s a sordid business and the victims are still being denied justice even as their voices are heard echoing across the Atlantic. A lot of people should be ashamed but it’s a professional skill of theirs to not feel that emotion for a moment.
* Today’s subject line is a reference to Christopher Hitchens’ Clintons biography, No One Left To Lie To, and it seemed appropriate to riff on a book about a pair of lying, cheating bastards.
Thanks for reading.