Dr. Oz claims to be one of the biggest proponents of eating fish but time and time again when it comes to seafood science he comes close to getting it right or he just misses altogether.
So, here’s the latest from the folks at Time.com.
KGO-TV in San Francisco joins the legions of local news operations who have had reporters catapulted to the heights of Woodward and Bernstein by testing local fish for mercury with the help of agenda driven activists. And wouldn’t you know it they didn’t get the whole story quite right:
…the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR.) Apparently CJR finds, in its latest edition, that the online version of many a magazine is lacking in the “conventional copy-editing and fact-checking” department.
The editors at Time have made change after change to this story, trying to bring it up to their standards, but perhaps a forest-for-the-trees issue has set in. You see, you can report the facts to the letter of the law 24 hours a day 7 days a week and still tuna won’t be one of the top ten most dangerous foods—that’s the simple fact.
Time.com has once again edited its piece on tuna. That’s two sets of corrections in two days.
Attrition is defined as, “the wearing away of a surface, typically by friction or abrasion.” In the case of our on-going challenge to Time Magazine to print the true story on tuna I have to wonder aloud if, in this case, simple attrition and not adherence to standards has forced a modicum of contrition.
Well, Time.com sure made some significant changes to that tuna article it botched yesterday. But here’s the question—is begrudgingly editing an erroneous report in order to come more in line with the actual facts enough?
When I think if Time magazine, or even Time.com for that matter, I don’t think of agenda driven hacks or sloppy sensationalists trying to out do the competition. I think of solid journalists who, for the most part, let their work speak for itself. For cryin’ out loud, this is the publication that names the Person of the Year.
