Sunday, September 06, 2009

Van Jones Resigns

Sounds like the right thing. But hearing anyone in the modern GOP talk about "extremist views and coarse rhetoric [that] have no place in ... the public debate" is nearly impossible to take seriously. Jones may fit that characterization -- but there are bigger fish to fry in this respect.

2 comments:

Cycle Cyril said...

The most significant aspect of the Van Jones resignation is that it is impossible to take seriously the mainstream media anymore and ignore the power of the internet and alternative media.

The MSM has not written one word or uttered a syllable concerning Van Jones until his resignation. His downfall is totally due to the internet and alternative media.

In fact if you only get your news from the MSM, as indicated by your link to the Washington Post, you would not get the full flavor of the uproar about Van Jones and you would be scratching your head wondering what happened? This clearly indicates the irrelevance of the MSM. (I would also add the predominantly liberal bias of the MSM.)

And you are right, there are bigger fish to fry.

PG said...

The MSM has not written one word or uttered a syllable concerning Van Jones until his resignation. His downfall is totally due to the internet and alternative media.

(1) You are aware that Fox News is generally considered part of the MSM, right? Or do you use the term actually to mean "non-conservative media"?

(2) You are aware that the "mainstream media" is on the internet now, right?

As for Jones's downfall, it's absolutely correct that it's totally due to the internet and alternative media. Query whether the mainstream media, which makes an effort to be objective, should have as part of its mission the "downfall" of an obscure political appointee for statements made prior to his appointment and with little to no relevance to his position.

It's not like Watergate, where the Washington Post was simply stating facts about the break-in and the chain leading up to the top. The folks who caused this resignation did so not by dispassionately stating facts about Jones*, but by magnifying how very terrible these facts were. They made no attempt to be objective at all; they never called Jones and asked for his perspective; they engaged in nothing like what used to be called "journalism."

* These facts appear to be, in chronological order: until 2000 he politically identified as a communist; he was a 2004 signatory to a 9/11 truther petition; in Feb. 2009 he called Republicans who opposed climate change legislation "assholes," and said he was an "asshole" too and thus could take them on. (Asshole here seemed to be used as a word to describe people who are tough and obstinate, as it's unlikely he would use a purely derogatory term for himself. For comparison, I find it unlikely that Dick Cheney ever told *himself* to "go fuck yourself.")

Which of these constitutes "news," that ought to be reported by a "news organization"? The truther petition is especially ludicrous -- it could be found simply by Googling Van Jones's name and clicking through. Oh, citizen journalism.