12/26/2023 0 Comments Toby young dateline“He is a valued columnist and we have every intention of working together for the long term.” “There’s never been a question” of his leaving, Ms. Hitchens could talk, but that that hadn’t been scheduled yet. vanden Heuvel said that the editors had considered staging a more open forum, outside the magazine, where Mr. As for The Nation, “There’s no pride in being associated with them anymore,” he said. “They crossed the line of decency or fairness for the most cowardly reasons,” he said, contrasting their actions to Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter’s, who had dinner with him at Elaine’s (“a public place,” he said) after the news broke. Hitchens and is fully prepared, now that the ugly times are over, to end the ugly tactics, too. Navasky said their disagreement was political, and that the editorial, which came out before the impeachment trial was over, expressed their view fully. And then I have to decide if I want to continue” to write for them, he said. “All the questions that they have may now, for what it’s worth, be answered. Hitchens is looking forward to the confab, of course. He’ll miss out on all that wonderful left-wing wailing and gnashing. Hitchens said he offered to reschedule for a better date, but that Mr. “He’s going to be in California,” explained Mr. “He’s a personal friend of the editor’s,” Mr. Hitchens of denying the Holocaust to him in a private conversation years before. Hitchens said that he’d “made it a condition” of his meeting “that Edward Jay Epstein be invited to come.” After the Blumenthal affidavit brouhaha broke out, Mr. To get all his perceived enemies under one roof, Mr. “I’d be very interested what he has to say,” she said. Pollitt planned to attend the March 4 meeting. She said he called women “douchebags”–an accusation she then took back in the March 15 issue, saying, “His longtime editor must have disremembered.” Ms. Pollitt, who was allowed to read his column before writing hers, compared him to a McCarthyite and accused him of being a borderline misogynist. That was followed by a sarcastic rejoinder by associate editor Katha Pollitt in her Subject to Debate column. Hitchens was allowed to defend himself in his usual column space, in a piece titled “What Really Happened,” which said The Nation had been “suckered” by the Clintons and expressed sympathy for Monica Lewinsky. It went on: “The moral issues involved in Hitchens’ actions are clear: We believe there is a journalistic (and ethical) presumption against using private conversations with friends for a public purpose without first obtaining permission and against a reporter cooperating with, and thus helping legitimize, a reckless Congressional prosecutor.” Blumenthal’s testimony to Kenneth Starr’s investigation of the President. Hitchens “inexplicably” filed the affidavit contradicting Mr. The March 1 issue of The Nation featured an unsigned editorial stating that Mr. Hitchens feels he’s entering enemy territory. vanden Heuvel termed it “a staff conversation with Christopher … a chance to just have a frank and constructive exchange of ideas.” When asked if it was a show trial, Mr. Hitchens to explain himself after the story broke. This is probably not what Nation publisher Victor Navasky and editor Katrina vanden Heuvel had in mind when they invited Mr. “I’m going to draw attention to a couple of things they may have missed,” promised Mr. Hitchens is going to air his grievances on March 4 to the whole staff in the magazine’s conference room at 33 Irving Place, at 10:30 A.M. Hitchens’ beef is that his feelings were hurt by the magazine’s distinct and derisive nonsupport of his battle-of-the-affidavits with Clinton White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal. This time he’s chosen another old friend to pick on: The Nation, the left-wing magazine of opinion and commentary for which he has penned the biweekly Minority Report column since 1982.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |