EDITED FOR LENGTH AND CLARITY

BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN MEDIA BIAS
A reader sent me a link to this interview of Amy Wax by someone at the New Yorker named Isaac Chotiner. The piece is titled “A Penn Law Professor Wants to Make America White Again,” and before you even get to the questions and answers Chotiner offers this brain-dead summary:

During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, Wax expounded on her beliefs that people of Western origin are more scrupulous, empirical, and orderly than people of non-Western origin, and that women are less intellectual than men. She described these views as the outcome of rigorous and realistic thinking, while offering evidence that ranged from two studies by a eugenicist to personal anecdotes, several of which concerned her conviction that white people litter less than people of color.

Reading the interview, what comes through most strongly is Chotiner’s invincible ignorance. Most of what Wax says is common sense observation with which I think most Americans would agree. But Chotiner resolutely refuses to get the point.

Chotiner’s name meant nothing to me, but a comment on a post about the Wax interview by Ann Althouse reminded me that Scott wrote about him after he was smeared by a different New Yorker writer. (Smearing is the New Yorker’s principal business these days.) Scott did two posts, Blindsided by the New Yorker and Hanging Up on the New Yorker. “Blindsided” deals with Chotiner’s mistreatment of Victor David Hanson, “Hanging Up” on an aborted interview Chotiner conducted with Israeli ambassador Michael Oren that became so absurd that Oren finally hung up in disgust. Both interviews were alleged by the New Yorker to be “edited for length and clarity.” I’ll bet they were.

Victor Davis Hanson emailed us with this warning:

If Chotiner makes numerous calls and sends emails, go with your original and initial instincts that he is a disingenuous and snarky performance artist, not a journalist. We can be sure the tone and substance of his outreach were toadyish and insidious too. Thanks for reminding people he needs a warning label given his toxicity.

I thought Wax came off well in the edited version of the interview, but no doubt the New Yorker’s staff believes she is a “racist,” whatever that means in today’s debased climate. Wax apparently recorded her interview, so it might prove interesting to see what was omitted or revised for the sake of length and clarity.

By the way: what is the over/under on how long it takes the New Yorker to ditch its own logo on the ground that it is white supremacist?

Share

Tweet

Reddit

Email