Subj:  Time just doesn't care, right?
 Date:  95-08-05 13:52:20 EDT
 From:  RogierNL
 Posted on: America Online
 
 >>I *am* asking how the punishment -- apparently a life sentence -- can
 possibly fit the crime.<<
 
 I've been in journalism for fifteen years, on two continents, on eight or
 ten
 different beats. Never have I seen such intellectual dishonesty on the part
 of a publication that made a huge stinking blunder. And it's getting worse
 all the time.
 
 RPTime engages in attempted character assassination of one of Time's most
 eloquent critics (EFF's Godwin), on the grounds that GODWIN might serve some
 special interest. RP is, of course, speaking for the media conglomerate on
 whose payrolls he finds himself. How twisted can you get? Don't get me
 wrong:
 any Time staffer can chime in with his or her opinion, and they're all
 welcome. But to question, from that position, the motives of others, is just
 too bizarre for words.
 
 Bottom line: Time did a bad thing. Perhaps an HONEST bad thing, if they were
 just being gullible, and careless in their factchecking. That can be
 excused,
 I guess -- provided the magazine at least comes clean. However, in defending
 its coverage to the last sigh, Time's behavior has gone from puzzling to
 reprehensible to downright vicious.
 
 Listen up, Robert:
 
 1) The Time follow-up in print was nowhere near an apology or a retraction.
 Instead, it was a cowardly punch in the face of the people, both online and
 off, who had helped establish Marty Rimm's lack of credibility as a scholar.
 While belatedly voicing doubts over some of the man's credentials, Time
 said,
 lamely, that controversy was to be expected over such a hot-button issue.
 The
 magazine attempted to lull its readers to sleep by implying that all the
 controversy really meant was that a bunch of elite cyberlibertarians were
 trying to pick a fight with a scholar whose work they didn't like.
 
 2) Philip Elmer DeWitt, at least (and at last), apologized online, if only
 for the original (cover) story. Even then, he did so half-heartedly. What I
 haven't seen is an apology, or an honest explanation, in Time's PRINT issue,
 where the damage was done. BTW, PED mysteriously implied that not he, but
 some higher powers at Time prevented a public self-flagellation. So what?
 That still doesn't absolve Time of its responsibility to tell us openly, on
 the broadest possible platform, how and why it erred. It DOES suggest that
 those mysterious 'powers' are spineless spin doctors who would rather wager
 the credibility of their reporters' work than stand up and say, honorably :
 'We're sorry we messed up, we've launched an investigation, we've
 strengthened our factchecking procedures, and we won't be led by the nose a
 second time.'
 
 To answer your comically indignant question: no, Time doesn't deserve a life
 sentence, whatever THAT means in magazine terms. But you and your colleagues
 would do wise to work at restoring your collective credibility, instead of
 arrogantly flaming the many critics who have made scores of valid points.
 
 We're all still waiting for a follow-up piece that simply tells the truth.
 Is
 that asking too much?
 
 Rogier