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.
I have some medical advice that Dr. Oz might be interested in hearing about.
Quick Update: So, we got Health Day's attention and they produced, as promised, another article that was a little less bias and a little more inclusive this time around. Their re-write can be found here.
As you might know from this blog we’ve had a number of interactions with A & E’s History and the Dr. Oz show in the past few weeks. The two case studies stand in stark contrast to each other and now some independent arbiters are weighing in.
You may come across a Health Day article about the UNLV study we told you about last week. You'll remember it started with that
The History Channel is home to some world class programs but in last night's episode of Modern Marvels the highly regarded outfit made some world class mistakes. In keeping with its highly regarded reputation we expect producers there to correct their mistakes and the record.
See our letter to History via A & E Television Networks below:
February 5, 2010
