Since your derogatory May 13 article about me (The Counterproductive Move To Consolidate Conservative Media) suggested you admired my journalism bona fides (“I think he’s an excellent reporter”), I’d like to show you why I believe you have a journalistic obligation to retract that article.
At the outset, let me say I vigorously support the right of someone to hold an opinion and to publish it. I am not trying to silence your opinion, even if I disagree with it. But even opinion journalists are held to a standard of professionalism. Reporting uncorroborated rumors is not one of them. But seeking comment from those who are criticized is one. The SPJ Code of Ethics makes these two points clearly. “Verify information before releasing it.” and “Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing,” SPJ declares.
If the SPJ is too “woke” or too “legacy media” for you, allow me to apply the standards of your own publication. Two years ago you published a piece from David Zukerman that rightfully took The Wall Street Journal opinion writer Peggy Noonan to task for using the uncorroborated Steele Dossier to make her editorial points while failing to provide the readers evidence that the dossier and the specific elements she cited in her article were demonstrably false. Your publication declared eloquently that the opinion writer’s “failure to critically analyze information that [runs] counter to her anti-Trump bias questions her own standing as a serious journalist.”
YouTube screen grab (cropped).
I would like to make the case that your article about me fails the same test your publication applied to Noonan.
First, you admit at the outset to publishing uncorroborated rumors. (Your own words: “assuming the rumors are true.”) One of those rumors you chose to report without checking is that “according to what I’ve heard” that the company Mark Meckler and I am seeking to build is raising money from “donors sympathetic to the vision of the Republican Party that Liz Cheney, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney espouse.”
This statement is demonstrably false and laughable. I spent two years exposing the role Liz Cheney played in crafting a false Jan. 6 narrative. I can state unequivocally and can demonstrate in a court of law that we have no donors inside our company. We are only seeking qualified investors. And none of the investors we are working with has ANY connection to Cheney, Ryan, Romney or Mike Pence.
But don’t take my word for it. I asked the investment company helping to form our venture, SPRian, for comment since you chose not to do so. Here’s what it said. “It has been rumored that this is some Bushy, Cheneyesque RHINO venture. This is ridiculous on its face. Solomon single-handled chronicled the Bush administration’s failures in preventing the 9-11 attacks and Liz Cheney’s role in fostering false narratives in Congress about Jan. 6. Meckler was one of the founders of the ultra-conservative Tea Party Movement and now leads the Convention of States Project. Both of these guys have long track records that are clearly not as described by parties smearing them in some sort of pre-planned takedown.”
Verdict: Noonan test failed. SPJ test failed.
Secondly you stated that “if you look at Solomon’s history it shows a man with a vision that he pursues relentlessly but no matter how much money or authority he gets he never fulfills that vision.” Later, you stated that I had “never achieved “ my goal and never “fulfilled” my vision. Specifically you cited my tenure at The Washington Times and declared, as fact, that I pushed a vision “allegedly at great expense only to see that implementation fall apart.” Oddly, for a conservative site you cite as a source for this information the left-leaning Columbia Journalism Review. I say “oddly” because your own publication blistered the Columbia Journalism Review for being a laughable journalism watchdog.
But setting aside your choice of sourcing, your story demonstrably omitted critical informatio. You cite one 2011 CJR article critical of me and then inexplicably ignore the fact that the Times asked me to return in 2013 and that in 2015 it announced that for the first time in its 30 years and after $1 billion in losses the newspaper had reached profitability. This announcement could not be hard to find. It shows up in a simple Google search and in the Times’ Wikipedia page. And The Associated Press wrote about it too. These omissions are even more glaring than the ones the Thinker slammed Noonan for.
Most importantly, you don’t transform a chronically indebted newspaper to profitability by spending recklessly or abandoning your vision. If you need further convincing, I am glad to connect you to the leadership of the Washington Times to confirm. I didn’t fail. I succeeded along with the rest of the members of the leadership team on our mission to make TWT profitable. This is demonstrably easy to show. You are simply wrong on the facts.
Verdict: Noonan test failed. SPJ test failed.
You also cite my time at Circa as a suggested failure. For the record, I was there for one year only — 2016 – just to help get it started and to install a millennial leadership team to run it. I then went to The Hill, where I helped create the Hill TV division and its morning show, one which still runs today and which was at the heart of The Hill’s $130 million sale to Nexstar.
I refer you to the SBG annual and quarterly shareholder reports for 2016. If you bothered to look at them you would see they reported extremely positively about Circa’s first-year performance under my leadership. For instance, the year-end report for 2016 boasted handsomely: “The response to Circa has been so successful that in just over six months since its launch, Circa has more social media followers than many established online millennial-focused news sites.”
Blaming me for something that happened after I left is like blaming Donald Trump and his first term for the illegal migrants who came in under Biden’s policy changes.
Verdict: Noonan test failed. SPJ test failed.
These falsehoods were easily avoidable. Simple fair comment or a few minutes more research would have saved you from glaring omissions that fail your own (and SPJ’s) standard of excellence.
I renew my request for a retraction.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.