Why do People Behave so Badly on the Internet? A case study

First, I am delighted to report a more-or-less satisfactory outcome to the baseless claim, made by a Mr John McDeere, that I had in the past described Mr Anthony Blair as my ‘political hero’

 

Mr McDeere has now posted as follows (oddly on the ‘Clarkson Controversy’ thread, rather than the one dealing with Mr Blair and mentioning his original post):

 

‘ Having corresponded with Mr Hitchens (and further researched his [PH’s] opinions on him [Mr Blair]) I can now retract my claim that he ever believed that Mr Blair was his "political hero". The remark was intimated to me by someone who is usually credible-in this case I trusted the remark too quickly, without assessing first.’

 

The retraction lacks any apology or regret, but I think I would get very bored trying to extract such things from Mr McDeere, who began thus, clearly intending to suggest severe inconsistency on my part:

 

‘Bizarre that Hitchens critiques Blair so much these days when he used to be an ardent fan. Years ago he stated that he was his political hero.’

 

When challenged, he showed no doubt or hesitation, but responded confidently

 

‘You must recall it. It was before the 1997 general election.’

 

Challenged again  to provide any evidence of this, he responded, still without any hint of doubt:

‘It was said in person to a colleague of mine, so I can't provide any textual reference.’

 

Pressed once more to be specific, he then wrote :  ‘As I recall, the colleague was John Rentoul. I can't remember the exact location in London, but it was a few months after he started working for the Independent…. It was more grudging respect rather than you outright supporting him.’

 

At last, a hint of doubt does not so much creep as burst in. From having said Mr Blair was my ‘political hero’ , I had merely expressed ‘grudging respect’, an almost total change of tune verging on a reversal, but made so grudgingly and so low down in the message that it lacked the impact necessary to wipe out the original impression.

 

The failure to show any real contrition was underlined by his next posting , which ran ‘Confused by the extent to which you are denying this-not really a big deal, as many were fooled by Blair's political campaign.’

 

But plainly it*is* a very big deal.  Can he possibly not have realised this when he posted his original claim? One of my main claims to percipience is that I did not join in the media mass adulation of Mr Blair. If it turns out that in fact I did do so, then my reputation is doubly damaged, as I would then have been shown to have been a) a sucker and b) a liar.

 

Was Mr Rentoul a ‘colleague of his’? Suffice it to say that, in my correspondence with Mr McDeere, there seemed to be some doubt about this.

 

 I may conceivably have met Mr Rentoul in 1997, though I didn’t then know who he was, if so, but I certainly didn’t use the words attributed in any such conversation.  In recent years, I have come to know Mr Rentoul, since our newspapers have offices in the same building and we occasionally tease each other in the canteen or on the escalators. I think if I’d expressed hero-worship of Mr Blair to Mr Rentoul in 1997, he would not now let me forget it.

 

But the really odd thing was that Mr McDeere than returned with a reaffirmation of his original claim, writing : ‘I have it on good authority that those were the words expressed at that location.’

 

Now we know that he didn’t. Why is it that people seem to feel free, on the Internet, to say almost anything?