No, New York Review of Books editor Ian Buruma shouldn’t have been bounced from his job for running “Reflections From a Hashtag”, an article by former Canadian broadcasting host Jian Ghomeshi, explaining, and explaining away, his multiple problems arising from complaints by more than twenty women of various forms of sexual abuse. It was particularly upsetting, but not all that surprising, to hear that numerous colleges and universities were threatening to cancel their subscriptions in “outrage” over one stupid article.
Mr. Buruma scarcely helped himself (not that, I guess, he deserved to help himself), by submitting to a brutal interview with Slate’s Isaac Chotiner, which led to some “awkward” exchanges like the following:
Chotiner: In his piece, he [Ghomeshi] writes, “In October 2014, I was fired from my job at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation after allegations circulated online that I’d been abusive with an ex-girlfriend during sex.” But it was not about online rumors. The Toronto Star, a famed and respected newspaper, was about to publish a big piece, and that is why he resigned, correct?
Buruma: It’s a respected newspaper, yes.
Chotiner: But you don’t think that’s misleading in any way?
Buruma: Not really, but again, I am not judging him for the exact rights and wrongs of what he did in the past.
Chotiner: I am asking you about what he wrote in your magazine.
Buruma: No, I don’t think so.
Chotiner: He also writes, “In the aftermath of my firing, and amid a media storm, several more people accused me of sexual misconduct.” Is “several” sufficient for more than 20 women?
Buruma: Well, in a literal sense, it is. It might have been better to mention the exact number, possibly so.
I think it’s fair to say that if Buruma had handled himself in his job interview with NYRB the way he handled himself during his sitdown with Chotiner, he wouldn’t have gotten the job. “It’s a respected newspaper, yes,” and “It might have been better to mention the exact number, possibly so” have got to be among the lamer non-answers that I’ve ever heard.
If Buruma had arranged for Ghomeshi to be interviewed by someone like Chotiner and published the results (presuming what is unlikely, that Ghomeshi would have agreed), well, fine. But instead, he gave Ghomeshi a highly envied platform in one of the most prestigious intellectual publications in the world (really) to spout meretricious, self-serving nonsense. And then, when called on it, delivers up evasive drivel in his own defense. The whole affair reeks of a certain “These dames never give a guy a break these days” ethos that might play well in certain locker rooms, but not on the Upper West Side.
Which leads to another fascinating, though not that important question: How could the editor of the New York Review of Books so staggeringly misjudge his audience? I can’t say that this is the stupidest article I ever read in the NYRB, 1) because I didn’t read the whole thing, and 2) because I’ve read some awfully stupid articles in the NYRB. But all the previous stupid articles I read made sense in terms of the NYRB audience. In the way past there were plenty of stupid “Yay Anarchy” pieces, plenty of soppy left pieces, plenty of Manhattan precocity, plenty of bitchy payback, occasional dollops of Likudism—plenty, in a word (or two), of New York. But what can you think of an editor who, if he had a brain in his head, would know that he is going out of his way to offend his entire audience with an article that is, you know, “provocative”, but also profoundly deceptive, self-serving, and stupid?
Afterwords
Buruma didn’t deserve to lose his job, but it’s hard to feel sorry for a guy who chooses to run an article that basically says “For Christ’s sake, when did it become a crime to pinch your secretary on the ass? They all want it. Otherwise, why would they wear those damn tight skirts?”
Kudos, by the by, to the NYRB for not taking down Ghomeshi’s Complaint. If they had, I’d really be pissed. The article that I first linked to, “shouldn’t have been bounced”, is actually called “What Ian Buruma’s Departure Will Cost Us”, by the (I guess) “controversial” Laura Kipnis over at the New York Times. I frequently like Laura, and frequently don’t, and this piece is worth reading, though Laura less than tough-mindedly ignores all the flaws in Ghomeshi’s piece, and Buruma’s responses, in order to concentrate on the “big picture”.
Buruma was Kipnis’s editor when she worked at the NYRB and she acknowledges him, effectively, as a mentor: “What I found, writing for The Review under Mr. Buruma, was a rare opportunity — or rare in a periodical with significant circulation — to take intellectual and stylistic risks, be offbeat in my opinions and get the last word in editorial scuffles.” Well, no one can be expected to turn her back on a mentor. But Kipnis disingenuously, in my opinion, refuses to engage with both the evasiveness of Ghomeshi’s article (why does he get to state, unedited, “his side” while his accusers remain invisible?) and Buruma’s responses as well. Says Kipnis “Mr. Buruma gave an interview after the publication of the Ghomeshi essay that came off as cavalier about the omissions in the piece, fanning the controversy.” “Came off”? How about “was totally evasive and dishonest?” Wouldn’t that have been le mot juste?
