28 ms·
To me he comes off less as a nut job and more as a cranky 78-year-old who's being interviewed by a media outlet that's been attacking him pretty hard.
by binxbolling 11y ago
To me he comes off less as a nut job and more as a cranky 78-year-old who's being interviewed by a media outlet that's been attacking him pretty hard.
- mturmon 11y agoI agree. It's the problem when the other side asks the questions and edits the responses down. Hersh was clearly annoyed that the interviewer wanted to talk about why the article did not appear in the New Yorker. The interviewer's agenda seemed clear: if the New Yorker did not see fit to print it, then I can safely ignore it. (People really do think like this, of course.) Why would a writer respect such an agenda? So Hersh lets him have it. Then, the interviewer appears to back off that angle ("Can I tell you why?"), and gave a different reason: He said he's interested in the publication venue because that would indicate a bias in the American press. Hersh says that's interesting. At the very end, the interviewer seems like he's trying to catch Hersh up in some kind of logical error regarding the venue question ("I feel like you are telling me two different things.") And then it's over. There's just nothing there. The interviewer asks questions, with a transparent agenda, that a grouchy reporter has heard before. They are kind of second-order to the actual story (i.e., venue). Hersh gets annoyed and hangs up.