PressEthic

In the October 16th issue of the New Yorker, political journalist Christopher HItchens is weighed, measured, and made to seem somewhat ridiculous. The British-born Hitchens began his journalisic life firmly entrenched on the left side of the political spectrum, writing for a socialist magazine while attending university in Oxford before moving to America to write for the Nation. Somewhere along the way, by degrees, he migrated to the conservative right. He now contributes regularly to the Weekly Standard and the Atlantic Monthly, among others. This, to some, is a damnable offense and is possibly the motivation for the lampooning he recieves in the leftish New Yorker.

The piece, written by Ian Parker, is titled He Knew He Was Right. Parker concedes to the common estimation of Hitchens as something of a virtuoso. But instead of analyzing and criticizing the substance of Hitchens's work, Parker periodically attacks his character.

We are given an image of Hitchens as a self-righteous blowhard, a chain smoking alcoholic out to bully the world into submission.

Early in the piece, Parker asks the question, "How did Hitchens become a 'Lying, Self-Serving, Fat-Assed, Chain-Smoking, Drunken, Opportunistic, Cynical Contrarian'(quoting a website)". With this, Parker sets the tone for what follows: a cynical play-by-play of Hitchens's personal life.

To be fair, Parker presents a mostly even-handed portrait of Hitchens, even showing some affection for him. But there are moments when his desire to peg Hitchens as a brute is apparent.

Parker says of Hitchens:

His enemies stood in two groups: first, the forces of jihad, and second, those in the "Chomsky-Zinn-Finkelstein" quarter," as he has put it - the cohort of American leftists who seem too eager to see the attacks as a rebuke to American imperialism.

He quotes Hitchens:

"the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face...What they abominate about the West, to put it in a phrase, is not what Western liberals don't like and can't defend about their own system, but what they do like about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific inquiry, ts separation of religion from the state. Loose talk about chickens coming home to roost is the moral equivalent of the hateful garbage emitted by Falwell and Robertson."

This is a fair and accurate presentation of Hitchens's worldview and motivation. Parker does not argue.

But every now and then, Parker cannot resist a nip at Hitchens's heels.

He several times attempts to depict Hitchens as puerile - a charge that, if true, would certainly detract from the value of Hitchens's political commentary:

Hitchens has the life that a spirited thirteen-year-old boy might hope adulthood to be: he wakes up when he likes, works from home, is married to someone who wears leopard-skin high heels, and conducts heady, serious discussions late into the night.

The Hitchens-Blue partnership (Carol Blue is Hitchens wife) has a grad school air. It's hard to see who pays the bills or fills the fridge.

Hitchens attended Oxford during the same years that Bill Clinton was there. The two never met, but apparently knew some of the same people. Of this, Parker tells us:

He does not remember ever having met Bill Clinton, his Oxford contemporary, but he told me that there was a student who, at different times, was his girlfriend's and Clinton's, before she began a lifetime of lesbianism.

later

...he had by then taken a position on the President, derived from policy difference and suspicion of Clinton's character (but also, possibly, from awareness of the gap in political potency between two Oxford contemporaries, one of them being the leader of the free world).

What gives Parker the authority to make such a suggestion? Could Hitchens not dislike Clinton simply because of policy difference? Of course he could. I know plenty of people that hate Clinton who, like Hitchens, never met the man. This weak attempt to portray Hitchens as a petty envious brat betrays Parkers's bias. Once again, he doesn't argue with any of Hitchens's beliefs or assertions, he simply attempts to invalidate them by belittling Hitchens's character.

This list goes on, but you get the point. I think Parker's tactics are a cheap way to debunk someone that you disagree with. Somewhere inside, Parker must realize that he is unequal to the task of taking Hitchens in a fair fight.

Yes, this a fluff piece, a profile, in the New Yorker. But the politics are definitely there, and i think that if you can't play fair, don't play at all.