Over at Newsweek’s site, Holly Bailey Daniel Stone* writes:

[Van] Jones’ comments were indeed inappropriate, but did he really need to resign? I interviewed Jones two times over the past year, the first time before his White House appointment and the second four months after he joined the administration. It was easy to tell, very early in our conversations, that Jones’ schtick was an unfiltered yet equally thoughtful type of advocacy. “This is a time for heroes, not zeros” on energy policy, he told me in our first chat, borrowing a colorful playground-ism. Not long after, the New Yorker trailed him for a profile in which the reporter captured a scene of Jones speaking to a roomful of students. “I don’t want to offend anybody,” he told them. “I might be too radical for you.” A young student called back: “Just being real.”
It’s an accurate way to describe him. That he has spoken off the cuff makes Van Jones a unique figure in a city that’s hopelessly scripted. (See also: Biden, Joe). There’s no doubt Jones could have chosen better words when referring to Republicans as “a–holes” last year, or to be more prudent in his associations with anti-government groups. It’s worth noting that the “truther” movement accusing the Bush Administration of a hand in 9/11 has evolved significantly since 2004. Back then, it was a sizable group of skeptical citizens asking unanswered questions. Only since has the association turned fringe and angry. And besides, those questionable instances came before he had an administration to speak for and constituents to answer to.

Is Newsweek trying to provoke an “Are you serious?!” John McEnroe–style racket-throwing temper explosion in response?

Truthers were always nuts. There was never a time when it was normal or healthy or reasonable to charge that the government executed or allowed to occur a massive terror attack claiming about 3,000 American lives. There was never a time when they weren’t fringe or angry. And where was this “it was before he was in the administration” defense for, oh, say, Linda Chavez?

Stone concludes, “While the political calculations are obvious, I still can’t help but wonder why Jones didn’t wait for the controversy to pass.”

It’s a free country, and Newsweek can publish whatever views they like. But the fact that Trutherism is seen as once-respectable — I guess Rosie O’Donnell was the Yoko Ono of the Truther movement — and that an administration official lending his voice in support of those views is considered the sort of thing that would “blow over” after a little while tells pretty much everything we need to know about the sensibilities in the newsroom of that magazine.

UPDATE: Gah. I saw Holly Bailey’s name photo at the top left-hand corner of the Newsweek page under “Authors” and thought she wrote this piece; it appears that the author is Daniel Stone. My apologies to Ms. Bailey.