our sort-of humble columnist was on a local all-news cable station the other night, representing right-of-center journalism. The set-up was the usual "Crossfire"-type situation. On the other side of the table was writer Peter Noel from the "left-and-proud" Village Voice, a paper that has been around so long representing "alternative" journalism that it prompts the question, exactly what are they providing an "alternative" to? We're talking more than four decades here!! Of course, the Voice has been home to some true iconoclasts, such as Stanley Crouch and Nat Hentoff. On the other hand, it also produced Clinton apologist Joe Conason. 'Nuff said.

Noel was invited to New York 1 — the local equivalent of CNN — because he had written the Voice's cover piece last week: "If A Cop Kills My Son, I Will Kill The Cop." Infuriated over Rudy Giuliani's handling of the Patrick Dorismond shooting, Noel argued that the mayor was "out-of-control," and that he was sending out a message to NYC cops that it was OK to "take out" young black men. Noel wrote, in "a vow born of rage and sorrow," that if his 13-year old son were slain in an encounter with the police and that if "justice" were not done, he would act himself — and kill the cop.

I was invited on to provide some, ahem, "balance." Only in the world of modern media can one organization get away with presenting as "reasonable" the proposition that it is OK to take out a cop and another organization invite the author to expand upon the issue. The second media organization invites on another journalist to help "balance" the issue. This is, of course, repugnant moral relativism hidden under a veil of media "objectivity."

In one sense, I felt uncomfortable about going on, because I would be giving credibility to what should be a horrifying suggestion. Can anyone imagine this scenario: "Tonight in the 'Crossfire,' murder as a legitimate way of working out one's emotional problems"? Wouldn't that be too horrible to contemplate? Well, perhaps not, since abortion crops up on such shows frequently. I finally decided that if I didn't go on, they could end up with somebody a lot worse.

Of course, there was something of an ulterior motive behind the network requesting me. Noel, like myself, is black (as was the host). New York 1 is seen by a large cross-section of New Yorkers. There was a distinct racial element in play: Left-wing African American versus his right-wing counterpart — with another black gentleman serving as moderator. Appalling rhetoric. To be sure, it did succeed, if one leaves aside the amorality of the topic, as "great TV."

Noel and I share a similar background: We were both born in Trinidad, have spent some time in the U.K. and have lived in the U.S. for about the same time (he's five years older than I am). His left-wing rhetoric aside, Noel can be a good writer. He wrote a Voice cover story a few weeks ago that discussed real "profiling," that is, what types of clothing cops consider as "criminal" attire. In his cop-killing piece, Noel even mentions his anger when his son indicates he wants to wear such "thug-like" clothing. Many of his articles are peppered with common-sense observations that are handed down in West Indian families. In fact, even "Kill The Cop" has powerful insights from Noel's mother. She is a woman of faith who believes in the power of her dreams. She reminds her son that despite the horror that Amadou Diallo's parents went through, his mother was not going out calling for the summary execution of the cops who accidentally shot him.

Noel would have none of this. Instead, in the article and on the air, he would repeatedly go back to the "fact" that cops were viewing black men as regular criminals and ruthlessly executing them. Pointing out that police shootings had plunged over the last ten years was a wasted effort. Noel's response was that the "community" had declared its anger and that the cops were now being forced to restrain themselves. But, Peter, if the cops were now restraining themselves, why are you making hypothetical declarations of war against the NYPD? The answer, in some bizarre formulation is that "Rudy Giuliani is a murderer."

Noel admits that there are literally hundreds more young black men killed in random incidents for every one shooting — accidental or otherwise — by a cop. But his concern is the "government-sanctioned" violence by the cops. He admits that crime has gone down under Giuliani, but refuses to give the man any credit. His response is that crime has dropped because of, believe it or not, the Million Man March. The March called for black men to behave responsibly and to take care of their communities. I don't completely reject this notion. It's certainly not the first time I've heard it. More than one cab driver (in Washington, D.C. and New York) has said the same thing. In fact, the crime drop across the nation has been so dramatic that it is not too outlandish to realize that certain cultural changes could be contributing factors. Besides, conservatives would never put one-hundred percent trust in the "government solution" to a vexing social problem. That's fine. But for Noel to say that the police deserve no credit at all suggests that he is — ideologically — living on another planet.

Which, of course, he is.

Noel, unfortunately, has fallen victim to the sin of pride. As a reporter, he could have written a story sharing the pain and frustration of various African-American parents. Even in the late '80s and early-'90s days when murder in New York City was double what it is now, the majority of black youth were innocents. Then, the fear was that a child would be caught between gang-banging drive-bys. Today, crime has plunged (even though there are still more than 500 murders in a given year in New York City), but there is this alleged fear of the police in the black community. Noel might have done a service by accurately reporting what might be an unreasonable, but legitimate, concern of overzealous policing techniques within certain neighborhoods. I am a conservative and support the police. But I am also a conservative skeptic of any government-sanctioned group — including the police. That would have been a reasonable approach for Noel — and not even a betrayal of his leftist values.

But either he or his paper rejected the dispassionate reporting-and-analysis method in favor of a "left-wing tabloid" personal approach. It was "effective" in getting attention -- which, of course, is a virtue in modern journalism. This is the Tina Brown/New Yorker/Talk magazine legacy: Create "buzz" and get people talking about your work and yourself. It doesn't matter what the topic is as long as people are talking about "it." And so, the dead bodies in the streets — whether cop, criminal or innocent citizen — matter less to Noel than he wants to claim. Undoubtedly, he loves his son and has brought him up with good values. But what values are being imparted when one conveys the lesson that justice means an "eye-for-an-eye?" Isn't that the very code of the streets that sent too many young men to early graves to start with?

By permitting himself to become part of the "buzz" culture and the ego journalism that is its signature, Noel has betrayed his profession, his son, and, ultimately, himself.