My piece about George in the Boston Globe seems to have aroused the latent ire of a handful of my old colleagues, some of whom are still angry about American Son.

How else to explain the nonsense peddled by reporter Sara James in Women’s Wear Daily?

I’ll quote from James’ story on the recent George event at the Kennedy School, and then correct its mistakes:

“The Daily Show” continued to be a topic of conversation at the dinner, thanks to a piece by Bradley in The Boston Globe this week. Bradley trumpeted the lingering influence of George by writing that “‘The Daily Show’ owes a creative debt to one magazine in particular: George.”

That struck some at the dinner Tuesday night as a bid for attention, especially considering the rift Bradley’s book about J.F.K. Jr., “American Son,” caused with his former co-workers and the Kennedy family.

“Richard Bradley was not going to be invited by any of the George people and he was not going to be invited by any of the Harvard people,” said one guest, alluding to Bradley’s book about Lawrence Summers, “Harvard Rules.” Even so, there was still some speculation he might show up, since, several years ago, he unexpectedly came to a lunch preceding the dedication of the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum at the Kennedy School of Government, where Tuesday’s panel was held. According to several people who were there, Bradley was encouraged to not stay for the dedication.

Okay, let the correcting begin.

My piece on George, a bid for attention? Not hardly. Frankly, attention from some of those people is the last thing I need. My editorial came out of a longstanding sense that the magazine was more influential than many people realized, a theme I argued in American Son and that, my friends will disclose, I’ve gassed on about for years. I’m glad that the article helped spark some conversation. That was partly my intention.

The piece was also partly inspired by the sense that no one who actually worked at George would be speaking on its behalf, and that that was a shame. I’m hardly the only one to have noticed that conspicuous absence. There’s no reason, for example, that my predecessor as executive editor, Elizabeth Mitchell, couldn’t have occupied a seat on that panel; Biz could have spoken eloquently about George. The omission was an insult to the staff of George. Heck, I was on a Kennedy School panel in 1999 that had nothing to do with George, and on a panel about George, they can’t find someone on staff to include?

As to my lack of an invitation…there were a handful of ex-George people involved in this event, and a couple of ’em don’t care for me much, and have never hesitated to say so—though almost always anonymously, as indeed they did here. I make it a point never to give an anonymous quote to the press. If you don’t have the guts to put your name to something, it usually means you shouldn’t say it.

Some George people wouldn’t have invited me. Some would (and have told me so). They just weren’t the people who controlled the invites. But everyone who worked at George knows that this myth of me against the staff (or vice-versa) is just silly. I still have plenty of friends from George, and I’m happy that most of them come from the contingent of staffers to whom my aforementioned critics would never have bothered to give the time of day.

One final thing, a line so wrong that it really is worth correcting: “Even so, there was still some speculation he might show up, since, several years ago, he unexpectedly came to a lunch preceding the dedication of the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum at the Kennedy School of Government, where Tuesday’s panel was held. According to several people who were there, Bradley was encouraged to not stay for the dedication.”

This is just nuts, and if Sara James had bothered to call me—I’m in the book—I’d have told her so. (Sara James, perhaps a little time at J School for you? Apparently this isn’t the only egregiously bad reporting you’ve done.)

First, notice the attributions James uses: “that struck some…as a bid for attention”….”said one guest“….”there was still some speculation”…..”according to several people who were there”…..

This is, simply, classic bad journalism. There’s not one attributed quote or fact. For all anyone knows, it could very well be largely or entirely made-up.

James implies that this mysterious lunch was connected with the dedication of the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum. It was not. The lunch in question was a reunion luncheon for Kennedy School alumni, and there were probably about 1,000 people present. Former Harvard president Derek Bok gave the keynote speech. A K-School alum invited me, and since I was then reporting a piece on the Kennedy School for Boston Magazine, I had a professional reason to attend. I was writing a book on Harvard at the time.

After the lunch, I bumped into former George publicist Lisa Dallos, who was on hand because she was attending the dedication of the JFK Jr. Forum and also because she was thinking about a mid-career change and considering the Kennedy School. We made some perfectly banal small talk. She asked if I was going to the dedication of the Forum. I said no, I thought it’d be awkward for everyone. She agreed. And that was about it.

A couple of days later, the New York Post ran a gossip item about how I was trying to crash the dedication ceremony. The source was anonymous yet obvious.

Now, another equally anonymous and erroneous item. Coincidentally, Lisa Dallos was doing PR for the event.

So let’s sum up James’ dubious reportage. She used blind quotes fed to her by people with an agenda. She didn’t call the subject of those quotes for a comment. She indulged in lazy and misleading attribution. She bought a publicist’s storyline hook, line and sinker. She didn’t fact-check. And she got facts wrong.

Future subjects of Sara James’ stories—and clients of Lisa Dallos—consider yourselves warned. Sara James is a sloppy reporter, and Lisa Dallos is a chronic gossip of dubious veracity.

But here’s the important thing in the end, far more important than my own personal gripes: From all that I’m told, the event was a success and people enjoyed it, and of that I’m glad. The folks at George went through a lot together, and we should be proud of our work, and any occasion to remember all that was good about George is a worthwhile thing. As for the office politics—it really is time for some people to grow up and move on.