If so, what’s your definition for “a clean hit?” I argue this is anything but a clean hit and that you should print a correction.
Now, when Jones says he didn’t sign it, you say it requires verification. Jones did not resign because he called the Republicans a bad name (Rahm does it all the time) or becuase there was evidence he signed the 911 truth petition (so says the 911 truth organization whose word you’ll take over Van Jones.) Van Jones resigned because he had become a political liability to the Obama White House, which does not stand up to right-wing attacks but which acquiesces to them, even in the Shirley Sherrod case. The group finally admitted that it never had my signature, but by then it was too late. In my case, the media rushed to judgment so quickly that I was never able to make clear that the group put my name on its Web site without my permission. I think we can agree “clean hit” is antithetical to what happened. You might want to reconsider your position taken in that dialogue as well. ĭoesn’t Journalism 101 prescribe that the correction be published in the original post? Also, take a look at your discussion with your readers in the comments of the post. In my latest for the Guardian, I take a look at the fall of Van Jones - and at how a far-right Web site and Glenn Beck, improbably enough, took him down with a clean hit. A little-known African American bureaucrat, Van Jones, was hounded out of office for having allegedly expressed offensive views about the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 – views he later said he had never voiced and did not hold.