So, here’s the latest from the folks at Time.com. This time their lawyer lets us know how “indisputably accurate” their story is-- only after having been revised twice because of myriad demonstrable errors we pointed out to them.
Let me suggest a way we can stop this back and forth. We both agree that tuna is “generally healthful”—Time’s words, not mine. So let’s not feature it on a list of the ten most “dangerous foods”—shall we?
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:
March 5, 2010
Kevin Keeshan
News Director
KGO-TV
VIA Email
Dear Mr. Keeshan,
…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. Interesting.
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.
For those of you who are joining us just now, here's a list of all of our previous and subsequent posts on this subject.
Time.com has once again edited its piece on tuna. That’s two sets of corrections in two days. But we’re really at a point where the piecemeal editing and backtracking has exposed grave flaws in not only the reporting on this issue but the editorial process that went into publishing it.
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? In this case—no. The report was fatally flawed from the beginning and, as we requested, should not just be corrected piecemeal but should be removed from the site altogether and the process that allowed it to be published should be carefully reviewed. Time.com may be done talking to us but we’re not done talking to Time.com:
February 24, 2010
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. You’ll probably sense my disappointment in the following letter… although it may be masked by a dash of snarkieness brought on by frustration. Have a look:
Examiner.com is an interesting publishing model that hints at the future of journalism; citizen reporters lending their eyes, ears and expertise to an evolving, organic news site. But what can sound good in theory can go completely off the tracks in practice. The proverbial inmates are running the asylum over at Examiner.com and its coverage of seafood science is evidence of that.
I have some medical advice that Dr. Oz might be interested in hearing about.
You see, it’s quite possible that his ears are burning these days and that might mean one of two things; one, he might need tympanometry which tests for ear infections or two, he might just need to log on to the internet because it would appear people are talking about him and he doesn’t know it.
To help him with this condition I wrote to his Executive Producer and of course his lawyer.
