It was like watching a train wreck in slow motion--you know it's going to end up ugly but can't take your eyes off of it anyway. On Thursday evening's program, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Tony Messenger, editorial page editor of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who, earlier in the day, announced the removal of George Will's syndicated column from the paper's line-up. (Truth Revolt covered reaction to that column here.) Though Messenger had promised the radio host three segments for the interview (about 30 minutes), clearly frustrated about the questioning, he hung up on the host after the second segment.

In his editorial announcing the removal of the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist George Will, Tony Messenger wrote:

Starting today, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson replaces George Will on Thursdays and Sundays. (...) The change has been under consideration for several months, but a column published June 5, in which Mr. Will suggested that sexual assault victims on college campuses enjoy a privileged status, made the decision easier. The column was offensive and inaccurate; we apologize for publishing it. We have heard from both conservative and liberal readers asking for new conservative voices. We believe Mr. Gerson’s addition to our op-ed page will be a refreshing and revitalizing change.

Hewitt, an attorney and law professor, conducted the interview like a trial interrogation. Starting off gently, he performed what he called "journalist GPS," asking Messenger questions about his education, the books he reads, religious practice, stances on abortion, same sex marriage, and the Second Amendment, and even which candidate he voted for in past presidential elections. 

After giving the listener a better understanding of Messenger's biases, Hewitt moved the line of questioning to Messenger's column. Hewitt drilled Messenger on Will's removal, extracting that most of the Will complaints to Messenger came from "anonymous blogging and Twitter things."

Hewitt: Now, you wrote about Mr. Will’s column, and I read all of it last hour to save us time, so the audience could, I didn’t have to read it with you. You wrote, “The change which led to Mr. Will’s column being dropped has been under consideration for several months, but a column published June 5 in which Mr. Will suggested that sexual assault victims on college campuses enjoy a privileged status, made the decision easier. The column was offensive and inaccurate. We apologize for publishing it.” I honestly cannot find a sentence in the column, Tony, that suggests that sexual assault victims on college campuses enjoy privileged status. Where was it?

Messenger: I believe the implication is clear that that’s what he believes some sexual assault victims are seeking, and what some universities are attempting to bestow upon them. And that is clearly how women -- a lot of women, and a lot of men, but based on my email reactions and voice mails today, significantly more women -- that is clearly how a lot of women who are deeply offended by it interpreted it.

Hewitt: Now earlier today, you told Erik Wemple of The Washington Post that the reaction of women I know, and talking to people who were really offended by the thought that sexual assault victims would seek some special victimhood, it helped seeing that response, and it informed my opinion. On which social media did you see that opinion voiced?

Messenger: Primarily Twitter and Facebook, which are the two that I spend time on, but then also just talking to individual women, talking to staff members, talking to people that I know, and receiving emails and calls about it.

Hewitt: And did you resort to any particular website other than Twitter feeds which can be highly selective, as we both know, and Facebook, which can be highly selective? Can you point to any websites that took this position and supported it by any kind of public opinion gathering other than anonymous blogging and Twitter things?

Messenger: I mean, not particularly. I read a lot of news coverage about it. I couldn’t tell you right now offhand exactly what I looked at.

Hewitt followed by asking Messenger the research Will used in his column and the editor's claim that George Will's column was inaccurate. Messenger ended up conceding there was nothing factually inaccurate about Will's piece:

Hewitt: Now I am concerned that this is pure McCarthyism, that post-hoc outrage, and there is an outrage industry in the United States, can generate charges that I am offended and that it’s inaccurate. I do not know how it’s inaccurate. I don’t believe, and I will look for your explanation at length, as to where it is inaccurate. But what, offensive is in the eye of the beholder, so you could be offended by something.

Messenger: Sure.

Hewitt: So tell me if you would, specifically, what was offensive, and specifically, what was inaccurate?

Messenger: And let me be clear, and I actually wrote an email to Mr. Will’s secretary today explaining the same question. He had a question about the inaccuracy. We weren’t referring necessarily to a factual inaccuracy, but we believed that the very assumption or opinion that sexual assault victims in any way on college campuses are seeking privileged status, or that universities are trying to bestow that status on women, is completely inaccurate, and don’t believe that the evidence shows that that is to be true. And mostly, it’s offensive. It allows, it continues for the victimization of women and diminishes the importance that we should place on the very serious prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses.

Hewitt: Did you, so you are agreeing there is no place where a factual inaccuracy exists in Mr. Will’s column?

Messenger: To the best of my knowledge, no, there is not, and we did not correct one.

The conversation moved to Messenger's claim that the column was offensive. Since offense is in the eyes of the beholder, Hewitt asked the editor if he ever opined about specific Democratic Party scandals in his years as an opinion columnist. Amongst the scandals he queried Messenger about were Juanita Broaddrick or Kathleen Willey, who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault. (George Will once wrote in the LA Times that he believed President Clinton had actually raped Juanita Broaddrick, though he didn’t use her by name. The LA Times dropped that reference and later had to publicly apologize for that.) He also asked if Al Sharpton and his manipulation of women claiming victimhood offended the editor.

Toward the end of this line of questioning, Tony Messenger was beginning to realize what he had gotten himself into as Hewitt was circling in for "the kill."

Hewitt: I think there’s this giant double standard for left-wingers. They overlook real sexual assault by people who ought to be named and shamed, and they go after people like George Will who write about a controversial study that’s got quite a lot of academic issues with it having to do with arithmetic. They fire him, you publicly shame him. You call him offensive. But I can’t determine the standard by which you do so. And so I bring up Al Sharpton only because of Tawana Brawley. He manipulated that young woman. Do you agree with that, by the way?

Messenger: I didn’t study that particular case significantly, so I mean, you know, I’m just going to try to be careful about making judgments about things that happened years ago that I may or may not have written about. I have spent most of my career writing about local and state issues. I have not spent most of my career writing about national issues. And so to say that I didn’t write about something, and then to make that jump to say that I have a different standard, while you incorrectly call me a lefty, I’m just going to be careful about not answering that, because am I offended by some of the things that Al Sharpton has said and done over the years? Yes. Have I necessarily written about it? I couldn’t tell you.

Hewitt: But I think silencing people and shaming them for perceived beliefs…

Messenger: I didn’t silence anybody.

Hewitt: Oh, you silenced George Will. You have, I mean, you’ve censored him.

Messenger: I took him out of our paper.

Hewitt: He’s out of your paper. You’ve censored him, right? That’s what censorship is.

Messenger: No, no, governments, come on, governments censor. Newspapers don’t censor.

Regular Hewitt listeners know that when he really wants to display a guest's hypocrisy he asks about Alger Hiss. Half the time the guest will talk himself into a corner, the other half the guest will hang up.

Hewitt tried to pin Messenger down on the question of whether Hiss was a communist. During this questioning one could tell Messenger was "on the edge." When Hewitt pushed further asking if Joe McCarthy was a good or bad guy, the St. Louis editor responded he didn't know McCarthy personally so he couldn't answer, but he probably wasn't a good Congressman (he was a Senator). Then it was time for the coup de grâce:

Hewitt: But how can you know what he did in his job if you don’t know if Alger Hiss was a communist?

Messenger: Now we’re getting far afield. Hugh, I appreciate the time.

Hewitt: No, we’ve got five more minutes.

Messenger: I’ve got to run.

Hewitt: You gave me five more minutes. Don’t go anywhere.

Messenger: I’ve got to go. Thank you, sir.

Hewitt: You promised me one more segment. Don’t you run away now. You promised me.

There was a loud click from the phone followed by the host declaring, "Unbelievable. He hung up on me. Another Alger Hiss victim. I’m sorry, America."