Peter Hitchens is a man of many beliefs: beliefs which consistently ruffle the feathers of ‘mainstream’ society. In recent weeks, Hitchens has said some fascinating things – the Conservative party is “socialist”, mass immigration is a “catastrophe”, and the UK is “finished” – so I’ve agreed to a phone call with the man himself, to find out what hope is left for modern Britain.
The answer? Not much.
Our thirty-minute conversation felt more like a war at times, with the Mail on Sunday columnist unleashing his whole range of rhetorical talents. He often likes to start his responses by picking apart the wording of the question. When I ask him what it’s like being a right-wing columnist in a world of political correctness, for example, he was quick to dismiss the terms ‘right-wing’ and ‘political correctness’, emphasising that he didn’t think the latter phrase was “a particularly useful category”. Hitchens is well-known for rejecting so-called political correctness, arguing that we should ignore “fashionable opinions” and be truthful – but he’s “all in favour of being polite to people”. The problem arises when these societal norms restrict him from publicly saying, for example, “that lifelong monogamous marriage is superior to other forms of sexual relationship”.
I try to agree that he should definitely be free to express his opinion, but struggle to get a word in edgeways.
He also notes that using the N word is “outrageous”, leading me to wonder what his understanding of political correctness really is. Surely trying to avoid insulting people is political correctness?
Surprisingly, it isn’t the content of my conversation with Hitchens which I find most difficult; instead, it’s the way he overpowers the conversation – almost waiting for me to ask my next question before interrupting with more. At first, I thought he was merely being talkative, but by the end I’m certain it was tactical. To some extent, I’m not surprised. Hitchens has been arguing since childhood – his brother, Christopher, was a veteran orator and fierce combatant, and I can’t imagine either of them backing down in a fight. In many ways, their sense of humour is similar, too. When I suggest that we move onto a different subject, he says “it’s your interview. You’ve got control of the brake and the accelerator,” adding “I can jump out of the car.” It didn’t quite develop into a car crash interview, but I do wonder if it’s all just a game for him – at one point he admitted that going against the grain of society is “a lot of fun”.
Moving on, I ask why he urged people to vote for UKIP if he thinks they’re a “joke”. “I don’t think I ‘urged’ people to vote for UKIP. I reluctantly said – when I couldn’t persuade anyone to do the much more sensible thing, which is not to vote at all – I reluctantly went, ‘if you must vote, then vote for UKIP’. I wouldn’t call that ‘urging’. ‘Urging’ is a bit strong.” Annoyingly, this word was actually taken directly from a video interview, but he didn’t give me the chance to point this out. “I didn’t want anyone to accuse me of endorsing UKIP, or saying that I approved of it, or that I like Nigel Farage. I don’t endorse it, I don’t approve of it, I don’t like Nigel Farage.”
I don’t endorse it, I don’t approve of it, I don’t like Nigel Farage.
This quickly develops into a discussion about drugs, as Farage is in favour of drug decriminalisation. Why has Hitchens previously described drug addiction as a fantasy? “It is a fantasy. It doesn’t exist.” I point out that medical data would disagree, but I don’t have any evidence to hand. “Well in that case, don’t think that. Find out whether it’s true and then come back and tell me. What you think is one thing, what you know is another. Either there is an objective way of demonstrating its presence in the human body, or there ain’t, and there isn’t one. You may think there is, but that’s because you haven’t looked it up.”
Luckily I have since looked it up, and I’ve watched videos of Hitchens speaking on the subject. As is often the case, his argument is based on a truth of sorts: he notes, for example, that not all people who take drugs become addicted. However, there is documented proof of drug addiction and genetic predispositions to addiction, something Hitchens has refused to acknowledge.
I ask Hitchens if he’s ever embarrassed by his newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, or the Mail Online sidebar of shame. He rapidly says “no” seven times (which might hypothetically be seen as overly defensive). “It would be like working on Newsnight and being ashamed of Strictly Come Dancing,” he explains. I’m somewhat surprised by the self-aggrandizing comparison of his work to the higher end of TV output, but what’s more hard to stomach is his comparison of the Mail to harmless light entertainment like Strictly. Surely Dapper Laughs would be a better analogy?
He continues, “it’s always the moral problem anybody faces – you can stay out of the dirt… and be wholly saintly, or you can enter into life at some point or other and try and make what impact you can, while making a compromise with the world”. It’s a fair response – of course newspapers need to be commercially viable to justify themselves, and of course he’s entitled to find his own soapbox. However, at the back of my mind, I wonder if there are any companies that are so distasteful he wouldn’t work for them. He left the Daily Express for its links to the pornographic television channels, so there’s a slight hypocrisy here which confuses me.
Hitchens was very vocal in his predictions that the Conservatives would fail badly in the election, so I ask him what went wrong. “I reached a reasonable conclusion on the basis of the opinion polls – which I think were broadly right – that the Tories couldn’t win an overall majority. What I didn’t grasp was just how effective the extremely costly submerged campaign of the Conservative party was in targeted marginal constituencies.” Finally, he’s opening up, and it’s a pleasure to hear his opinions. He says the Conservative win was “a victory on points, but not really a moral victory”, noting the minimal swing in total votes towards the Tories –a 0.8% increase in the total vote share, compared to 2010.
Finally, he’s opening up, and it’s a pleasure to hear his opinions
He then says that “there actually isn’t any substantial difference between a Labour government and a Conservative government”. Both parties are ‘left wing’ compared to him, and both have been swallowed up in what he calls “the ideology of equality and diversity”. He mentions the “ludicrous personal attacks on Ed Miliband”, but when I point out the Daily Mail’s role in these attacks, he pauses slightly, getting caught up in his words. “I’ll stick to making general comments. I think that basing a campaign on personally discrediting Ed Miliband was… well, I mean, it works, but it’s something I don’t approve of.” For someone so outspoken, he’s clearly uncomfortable talking about his employers.
These tricky questions might be the reason for his later revenge, and the painful highlight of the interview. “You’re quite open about being a pessimist,” I begin – intending to ask if he saw any positivity in the world at the moment – but he immediately interrupts: “should I be ashamed of being a pessimist? What’s wrong with it?” I try to clarify that I haven’t yet asked my question, and I wasn’t attacking him for being a pessimist. In a two-and-a-half-minute exchange, I apologetically repeat “no” or “not at all” nine times, trying to explain that he’s misunderstood. “It’s you that’s misunderstood what you were yourself saying”, he informs me. Eventually, he answers with a blunt “no”. I ask if he has anything else to say. “No. It’s an unqualified, straightforward ‘no’.” He pauses. “One of my favourite words, actually.”
“no”. He pauses. “One of my favourite words, actually.”
Soon, the interview is over, and he’s kindly offering to help if the recording is indistinct at any point. Unfortunately, this doesn’t last long. “If you misrepresent me, I’ll haunt you after I’m dead. There will be no mercy. Apart from that, good luck.”
And that’s the unsettling end of my interview with “The Hated Peter Hitchens” (his words, not mine). He’s undoubtedly an intellect, a skilled orator, and a man of incredible conviction. In other words, I disapprove of what he says, mostly, but I’d defend to the death his right to say it.
On the other hand, we already have one Katie Hopkins in this country, and that’s more than enough for me.
Jeremy Brown,
“He also notes that using the N word is “outrageous”, leading me to wonder what his understanding of political correctness really is. Surely trying to avoid insulting people is political correctness”
Surely you are trying tell us you shoved this bit into the interview as code to your readers for the purpose of overtly prejudicing the entire discourse?
Surely you are guilty of being hypocritically distasteful by inferring Mr. Hitchens is insulting anyone by defining the N-word as outrageous.
Surely, even you must realize the secular circle your brand of PC has trapped yourself in.
How can you NOT see how a word can be considered outrageous, when its sanctioned use by one group is thus exclusively tolerated? Such a widely held assertion qualifies the delimited use of the N-word most accurately as outrageous. What mental obstacle to this do you possess that can still allow you to tie your own shoes.
If your angle was to be polemic, it utterly failed given the bulk of academia promotes the same ridiculous PC prejudices as you have hereto displayed. Need I further point out a disingenuous ambiguous assertion is hardly polemic in the first place?
Leaving the question, Whatever were you thinking? Were you merely hoping by sowing of a row of blabbering intellectual dishonesty it would indeed leave you haunted long after Mr. Hitchens as passed on.
Because that grim prospect is exactly all you have reaped.
It will always be in the back of your mind how you passed a great opportunity for clear journalistic integrity. And if you do not rid yourself of the aforementioned mental obstacle you will always have that impression but never understand why. Good luck indeed.
has owen jones contacted you jeremy , cause i think that will happen
Never have I been more proud of you!!!!
Gawd ‘elp us.
fred ball is excellent
Stupid child. When you grow up you might write something worth reading.
totally agree andrew , his brother attacked george galloway after he went to the senate ,and humilated them in 2005 , and made out george was somerthing he wasnt , peter hitchens said exactly same as george regards middle east , and regards ww1 onwards to present , my gran grandad fought ww2 , my gran never knew hitler was a politican , right up until she died 2011 age 87 , i was expelled from high school 1984 2nd yr history , for asking where hitler appeard from in 1939 and what happened from 1918 until then , yrs later find out the truth , expelled for having common sense , to question something that didnt make sense
A childish piece. The author gives more attention to his own inconsequential thoughts about the interviiew than to the interview itself.
Jeremy, you didn’t do your homework, did you? You assumed PH was another “shock jock” like Katie Hopkins, and thought you could dispose of his arguments with your PC received opinions. Hopefully, you’ve learned a valuable lesson: Never underestimate your opponents. Unlike Owen Jones, you show yourself to be a humorless arse, missing PH’s closing joke, entirely. Also, introducing refutations into this piece, which you did not bring out during the discussion, or accusations of hypocrisy which you didn’t put to him, are the actions of a scoundrel.
Give up mate.
Actually, it came across as immature, rather than a slur to be taken seriously. Hopkins and Hitchens aren’t on the same planet intellectually and he has never said anything hateful about migrants as people. In fact, he has generally expressed admiration for their enterprise.
This piece was quite good in terms of the story it told and the impressionistic side but it was a bit simplistic and unfair in dealing with the issues he talked about. I didn’t feel like there was a lot of openness on your part.
Comparing him to Katie Hopkins is a ghastly slur. He would never say or think the things that she says. I don’t think he deserved that after agreeing to an interview with you in order to support student journalism. How many others of Hitchen’s status have given you an interview?
“Finally, he’s opening up, and it’s a pleasure to hear his opinions”
Translation: finally, he’s saying some things I agree with and its a pleasure to hear his opinions.
Agree with all other comments, this piece is a ghastly mess, and the knowledge that this is the standard of our future journalistic elite is frightfull.
PLEASE laddy grow up and open your mind! Just because you FEEL something tio be true doesn’t mean it is, even though you are a good person.
For a ‘ perfectionist’ who struggles against ‘bad grammar’ you sure make a lot of terrible errors, even in your blurb. How can ‘every day’ be an ‘endless’ struggle when it is a finite delineation of time? If you had said ‘seems to be an endless struggle’, it would have made sense. ‘An endless struggle against….bad grammar’ is not a ‘point’, it’s an ‘experience’; nor can a ‘point’ be ‘helpful’ (though an ‘experience’ can). In your article you mix tenses a hell of a lot, which is hardly the sign of a classical grammarian. It’s acceptable though, until you do it in the same sentence: ‘When I ask him what it’s like being a right-wing columnist in a world of political correctness, for example, he was quick to dismiss the terms ‘right-wing’ and ‘political correctness”.There are several other crashing errors. ‘Surprisingly, it isn’t the content of my conversation with Hitchens which I find most difficult; instead, it’s the way he overpowers the conversation…To some extent, I’m not surprised’ (!!!) When Hitchens objects to your use of the word ‘urge’ to describe what he did to enourage people to vote UKIP, you continue: ‘Annoyingly, this word was actually taken directly from a video interview.’ No Jeremy, it wasn’t the fact that it was taken from the interview that annoyed you, it was his denial of this. Your adverb ‘annoyingly’ is – annoyingly – misrelated. (And Hitchens is right to object the lack of nuance in your original question. His position on UKIP is quite coherent: he doesn’t endorse it, but at least it’s not one of the establishment parties. Hence, ‘If you must vote, vote for UKIP.’ Not so hard to understand is it?)
However, your claim of constant grammatical vigilance notwithstanding, the incorrect English is the least irritating thing about this article. Like many journalist-interviewers, while your actual grasp of the discussion shows itself to be very limited, you are very good at projecting a veneer of sophistication and magnanimity. This is achieved by the employment of phrases like ‘I try to agree’; ‘leads me to wonder’; ‘ I suggest’; ‘which confuses me’; and the infuriatingly patronising ‘I point out’ – amounting to a pose of tentative circumspection, designed, of course, to contrast oh-so-damningly with Hitchens and his vulgar ‘beliefs’. He has arrived abruptly at his opinions without examining them, but you, you’re just an open mind , aren’t you? You don’t have any unexamined assumptions, do you?
Well unfortunately, the framing of your questions reveals otherwise. For example, to say that Hitchens is ‘quite open about being a pessimist’ is hugely loaded, suggesting it is remarkable for someone not to bury their pessimism in shame. That’s one hell of an assumption, and Hitchen is right to interrupt at that point, as he sees this straight away. He is also right to say that you are unaware of the bias implicit in your own wording.
And having, in your mind, painstakingly achieved an impression of scrupulous balance, you go and dash it all by falling through a black hole of logic in your final sentence, where you equate Hotchens with ‘the hated ‘ Katie Hopkins. So you were really closed-minded all along! Hopkins is not a nice person – though that does not mean she is wrong about everything, and using the word ‘cockroaches’ about migrants, while highly unpleasant, does not actually convict her of genocide, contrary to the belief of all Guardian readers. Your comparison with Hopkins is clearly an expression of contempt, but your article totally fails either to justify this contempt for Hopkins (do we really have to debate things?’ Not in your snug little playroom – I mean campus – evidently) or show how Hitchens is comparable. As a reader of his columns, I can think of many rather important ways he isn’t: he is not a economic liberalist, and his views on adultery contrast slightly with Hopkins’ ‘if I want him, I’ll have him’ mindset. He isn’t gratuitously rude or ignorant, and he considers his arguments. As you’ve just written, he is ‘an intellect’.Clearly you don’t mean it. Like many mediocre interviewers, unable to wrong-foot their opponent in real time, you couch things in such a way that the reader is in no doubt of who came out on top when you come to write up the exchange.
Other highlights in your article:
Your grasp of ‘political correctness’.
Hitchens is clearly endorsing one aspect of it, while rejecting another. He approves of basic good manners – not using the N-word, etc. – but might question whether this is achieved by endless ‘diversity’ drives and speech codes, rather than a natural process of integration. What he objects to the disingenuous invocation of ‘good manners’ as a self-serving tactic in political discussion: the claim that to say, for instance, that two-parent families are statistically more successful , is egregiously offensive. Hitchens’ point is that there is a time for manners, i.e. not when they impinge upon the ability to have a rational, honest discussion in the political arena. Hitchens can see the cliched thinking in both ‘political correctness ‘ and in attacks on it. It is YOUR grasp of political correctness that is limited and either naive or disingenuous , Jeremy. It is not ‘just’ good manners, sadly. It should be.
Your grasp of his BBC analogy.
Being ashamed of working for the Mail ‘would be like working on Newsnight and being ashamed of Strictly Come Dancing,” [Hitchens] explains. I’m somewhat surprised by the self-aggrandizing comparison of his work to the higher end of TV output, but what’s more hard to stomach is his comparison of the Mail to harmless light entertainment like Strictly. Surely Dapper Laughs would be a better analogy?’ (Note the unnecessary question mark, Mr Perfect). No, he is not saying the Mail is like Strictly, but like THE BBC AS A WHOLE, including a wide variety of output, good and bad. Your failure to get this does not fill the reader with confidence in your powers of analysis . Nor is his claim to be at the high end remotely self-aggrandising (have you read Femail?). Once again you fail to grasp the very simple point he is making. And once again your own views on the Mail’s toxicity are to be taken as read, without the slightest use of evidence.
Your accusation of hypocrisy.
Hitchens makes his point about the dilemma of the journalist regarding his employer very clear. He neither claims to be immaculately high-principled over this, nor wholly cynical, taking the middle-ground. However, he did have the courage to leave his job at the Express, evidently because he judged its owner to have gone below the standards he demanded. It is jaw-dropping that you adduce this bravery as evidence of ‘hypocrisy’. You brilliantly perceive that ‘he’s clearly uncomfortable about talking about his employers’. Have you never heard of an employee’s contract? Have you ever had a job?
Some particularly irritating phrases:
‘medical data would disagree’ – as if medical data is one homogeneous entity. Also pathetically vague.
‘However, there IS documented proof of drug addiction’ – as if documenting something proves it to be true. Also, emphasising a word doesn’t constitute an argument.
‘He often likes to start his responses by picking apart the wording of the question’. As if this is an unconscious compulsion or foible, which you see through, rather than a perfectly normal, and indeed essential, method of a rigorous intellectual.
To sum up
Far from you being , as you imply, Hitchens’ superior in morality, intellect, learning and civility, the reverse is the case. Did you know that he has visited and reported on over a hundred countries, and written half a dozen thoroughly researched books? Have you read a single one, or just watched his Owen Jones interview on YouTube? Did it occur to you that he was being tongue-in-cheek when saying he would ‘haunt’ you? Or that he was sending up himself when saying that ‘No’ is ‘one of my favourite words. Did you reflect that the reason for his defensiveness and admitted abruptness originates in the aggressive politics manifest not in your tone or your behaviour, but in your very thinking, and in his having to deal with your tiresome ilk day in, day out?
You insist that you defend his right to say what he thinks, but judging from this smug article, I would guess that this comes with the proviso that you would like to prevent people of his views to have any power in any institution whatsoever. I accept that you are young, and perhaps therefore I am being a bit hard on you. But I could not help wasting an afternoon on this comment (something I have never done before). Your arrogance stung me to it. Please reflect on this.
You sir need to get a life 🙂
Well, there’s such a thing as the life of the mind, but perhaps it’s not for you
I’m more of a scientist, I find more joy in trying to comprehend the wonders of life, than in berating someone for having a different opinion on someone to me!
But you’re now berating me for berating someone for berating someone else! ‘Hypocrite lecteur! Mon semblable, mon frere!’ (More into the joy of comprehending poetry myself. Life has many wonders and many joys. Logic, language, truth, the concepts of the body politic and the common weal, morality etc etc : these are among the great wonders of life, I would have thought, and these are what are at issue. Indeed there is a joy in ‘trying to comprehend’ itself, as any scientist worth their salt would know. You have made two comments, both of them fatuous. I may need to get a life, but even I have better things to do than continue this exchange – i.e. change my toilet seat. Good night!)
Could it perhaps be the authors intention to use loaded phrases to imply his own opinion?
Shock horror!
Sure. But then he should not be shocked if the interviewee picks up on it
Wow. Rekt.
that interview was just awful, and I don’t mean Peter Hitchens. Katie Hopkins comparison? Clearly you’re a fool for saying something so ridiculous.
I stopped reading your article when you wrote that Mr. Hitchens questions the wording of a question: something any intellegent person should do. Having read the comments posted here, I am glad I did bothrr reading any further.
absolutely dreadful journalism
You write, ‘Surely trying to avoid insulting people is political correctness?’
No, it is not. PC is a *political* post Marxist ideology based around the identification of oppressor groups and victim groups, and, proceeding out of this ideology, the criminalization of language which its followers identify as sustaining this oppression. For a historical example, in civil war Spain, communists disallowed the use of the word ‘Sir’ and insisted on ‘Comrade’; the idea being, change the words people use, train people to self censor themselves, change the way people think and feel.
The trouble with your interview is a strange mix of roles you present for yourself. You portray yourself in the role of victim, overpowered by a tough hearted kook or bully; you portray yourself as a gentle depth psychotherapist dealing with someone who is bad or mad; you portray yourself as a moral and intellectual judge; it is a journalism that is a self reportage of your own emotions on a journey outside your safe place. Maybe you can think about how ‘PC’ that all is, how subjective over objective, how closed over open, how emotion and intention over argument and reason.
I doubt they used the word Sir in Spain or Comrade for that matter.
I think it was gracious of Peter Hitchens to give you so much of his time – although you inexplicably say “I’ve agreed to a phone call” as if you are doing him a favour. You splash his clearly humorous aside about haunting you after his death on your headline as if that’s proof of his demagoguery. Then you compare him to Katie Hopkins which is a facile, frankly moronic comparison. I’d be surprised if you’ve read his books. You’ve really done a very good job of showing how not to do an interview. I do wish you well, and hope your journalistic standards improve – let’s be honest, the only way is up!
Peter Hitchens like Katie Hopkins? Your juvenile article was silly enough until the last part at which I wasn’t sure if this was a genuine interview or satire.
When you grow up you’ll realise Hitchens is more or less correct on many of the controversial things he says.
Jeremy, on Peter Hitchen’s website he says that you requested an interview with him. In your introduction you claim that ‘I’ve agreed to a phone call’. Would you clear this matter up? I think it’s important as you later accuse PH of grandiosity.
Also, you relate that this 30-minute conversation ‘felt more like a war at times’. Though later you say that ‘it didn’t develop into a car-crash interview’. You’re a little on the melodramatic side, aren’t you?
You speak of PH getting his revenge on you and you’re upset enough about an obvious joke to make it your headline. One that I think is rather discourteous given that the man is your invited guest.
Your opinion that addiction is a disease you backup with a post-interview link to a single web page of evidence with, ‘Luckily I have since looked it up’. Well, I have followed the link and the page has no objective evidence that shows addiction. PH’s point is that you can’t measure or even find addiction in a scientific objective manner. In the same way as you can a tumour, for example. It won’t appear on an x-ray. How do you treat something you can’t find in an objective fashion? Something that isn’t there for all intents and purposes?
You frame a post-interview link to a youtube link with, ‘Annoyingly … he didn’t give me the chance to point this out’. Again, how are you going to defend to the death his right to say what you disapprove of, if you can’t even defend your own point of view? It sounds a bit glib in that context, does it not?
You state that you wonder what PH’s understanding of PC is. Why didn’t you ask him?
Other than that, I’d ask why you ‘agreed to a phone call’? I suspect you didn’t. And the rest of the interview flowed from that first omission of truth. It’s important how you begin, Jeremy. Begin again. This time, show some humility.
Bravo. Thank you for putting it better than I ever could. I felt sick reading this article. I’ve never understood attacks against Peter Hitchens when he is quite often an honest, wise and somewhat prophetic voice in this increasingly wearisome world. In short he’s a treasure.
Hopefully the writer grows up, stops reading Vice News, and realises his opinions are not universally held or necessarily correct.
He’s not at all similar to Katie Hopkins.
I guess you’re getting haunted then.
I’m no fan of Hitchens, but this was pretty bad journalism.
“Our thirty-minute conversation felt more like a war at time”
>felt like (“journalism”)
“with the Mail on Sunday columnist unleashing his whole range of rhetorical talents”
what you force his hand to do is your doing as you called him.
“He often likes to start his responses by picking apart the wording of the question”
you say this as if it’s petty to be concise in addressing political questions. it is quite essential in 2015 that you have your ears pricked when replying to modern political questions for most of them are begged questions and various fallacious traps and more often that not you’ll find you have to reframe the question on behalf of the other in a way that makes it answerable first not to just have that biased other party receive the shitty framed answer they were looking for.
“I try to agree that he should definitely be free to express his opinion, but struggle to get a word in edgeways.”
oh you poor soul at least now you’re getting the valuable air time you rightly deserve!
“Luckily I have since looked it up, and I’ve watched videos of Hitchens speaking on the subject. As is often the case, his argument is based on a truth of sorts: he notes, for example, that not all people who take drugs become addicted. However, there is documented proof of drug addiction and genetic predispositions to addiction, something Hitchens has refused to acknowledge.”
he can’t acknowledge what hasn’t been brought forth to him. the arrow of time doesn’t flow the other way. either you conduct a second interview and bring these questions to him or you post some dishonest journalism.
“(which might hypothetically be seen as overly defensive)”
you should really stop inferring things. it isn’t objective journalism to do so, it’s imitating bad BBC journalism which is currently in the toilet. same as the effect you get of dotting about pointlessly large quotes you decided are pertinent but follow directly after having read the quote.
“I’m somewhat surprised by the self-aggrandizing comparison of his work to the higher end of TV output”
laughed hard that you think newsnight is even to be considered “high end” or that you’re just insinuating out of the terrible choice britain gets that newsnight is comparably good.
you’re making the comparison. he’s making an analogy. learn the difference.
“For someone so outspoken, he’s clearly uncomfortable talking about his employers.”
or he’s uncomfortable knowing that you would lump his employer in with him loosely inferring that in a part or a way their opinion sets can not be disconnected; that to have a hitchens you need to take a brunt load of murdoch and that they must be intertwined because of this. dodgy journalism.
he’s uncomfortable you’re taking that avenue of attack and are spending your half hour in that way when there are so many other things you could be asking.
“I try to clarify that I haven’t yet asked my question, and I wasn’t attacking him for being a pessimist.”
no but you are doing a job of framing him in the “mainstream” light and pretending you’re the white man who has come to offer him redemption if only he can defend his case.
when you do this BBC disingenuous thing of saying “others say x” you simultaneously ACTUALLY ASK X because you’re demanding they respond to what “others say” but you’re one of those others in that moment, perpetuating that single thought.
“It’s you that’s misunderstood what you were yourself saying”
he’s right; you don’t get that you’re doing the character attack work of someone else for free.
“And that’s the unsettling end of my interview with “The Hated Peter Hitchens” (his words, not mine). He’s undoubtedly an intellect, a skilled orator, and a man of incredible conviction.”
unlike yourself who is someone who can merely comment on great men, attempt to frame them poorly by asking lacking questions that don’t challenge their intellect or their wide set of views and attempt to lump in him with his supposed peers in an attempt to smear the name and not the things said (or asked).
“In other words, I disapprove of what he says, mostly, but I’d defend to the death his right to say it.”
having read your piece i can tell that these words are quite hollow
“On the other hand, we already have one Katie Hopkins in this country, and that’s more than enough for me.”
signing out with bitching and the fallacy of association; wrapped up in an ad hominem attack and a slippery slope fallacy.
you’ll be the BBC’s chief editor in no time.
wow