The scenario often goes like this. Public, or semi-public figure makes comment that is deemed controversial. Routinely, the comment has been taken out of context. Media jumps on story, like proverbial pigs in shit, and figure is forced to defend. Backpeddling, figure most often retracts comment, issues apology, say they didn't make statement, or some variation on that scenario.
Ward Churchill is not backing down from his statements. In addition to having his life pried open like a dented sardine can, fellow activists and others that he has worked with and supported over the past 30+ years are running from him, tails tucked firmly between their legs. Here is a decent article (for mainstream reporting) in the Rocky Mountain News.
To Churchill's credit, he won't answer the mundane details of his life, such as, who is your mother, "It's absolutely indefensible," he said of probing questions into his family history. " 'Who's your mother and where does she live?' Yeah, she needs to be dealing with what I'm dealing with, at 85 years old.
"They're welcome to call my father. They can interview him." He says this because his father is deceased. (I love Brennan's snide editorializing in the midst of his "news" story)
Other related articles:
Editorial on same subject
Essay on U.S. foreign policy, in light of Churchill's comments
Then there's this