Editors do live in glass houses - Editorial

If we operate by the commonly espoused principle that only those who have never made a mistake merit the luxury of criticizing others, then editors' columns would be very empty indeed. So for those of you who would like to reassure yourselves right away of Folio:'s fallibilty, please jump to the bottom of this note. Those who want to read about others' misdeeds, continue.

I have seen several articles of late be-moaning the lost art of the apology. While it is true that a confession of one's sins may be good for the eternal soul, contrition that is coerced is somewhat less holy. And when I see it in print, it makes me wince because I know each of us is potentially just a lawyer's letter away from a forced and public "mea culpa."

A recent example is The Washingtonian's apology to talkmeister Larry King for, as editor Jack Limpert explained to The Associated Press, "being too rough." Ouch. But the A.P. story's last line really stings: "The retraction, to be published in the magazine's August issue, marks the fourth time in recent years that The Washingtonian has avoided litigation by agreeing to publish apologies."

I have the utmost respect for Jack Limpert, both as an editor and as a Folio: contributor, and I'm inclined to see the apology as a very pragmatic decision. Given the way the American court system is structured, the plaintiff, no matter how frivolous or foolish his claim, has little to lose. Even if the magazine prevails, as defendants in libel cases usually do, the plaintiff will seldom be responsible for paying the winner's court costs or his attorney's fees. So, ultimately, even the winner loses.

But it sure doesn't make it any easier for the rest of us, should we want to play a little "rough." The more quickly magazines capitulate to the rich and powerful (i.e., the people who have ready access to aggressive attorneys), the more tetchy and demanding such story subjects become.

On the trade side, Electronic Media is closing in on The Washingtonian's record. Once again, the discomfiting aspect is not that EM made two "mistakes' (involving its advertisers Twentieth Television and Paramount) in the last 13 months. Rather, it is the profuse and tortured nature of the apologies - written by editorial director/publisher Ron Alridge - that ultimately makes a much bigger issue of die putative errors, and absolutely must have made readers wonder what pressures were brought to bear. Is it reasonable to devote more than 700 words (among them, this gem: "We should have known better. Paramount doesn't do business like that. The company's too smart and too ethical. ... EM's editors should have smelled a rat the minute the story popped up on their computer screens.") to correcting a 200-word news item?

I wouldn't have pictured the maddest of mad-dog lawyers insisting on that. Unfortunately, now I can.

Corrections: In the August I Word One story," "Rare Ed' Garner's Honor," Bon Appetit editor at large Zack Hanle's name was misspelled as Zoch Haule.

And in the July 1 List activity, we stated that American List Counsel manages the Success list. It doesn't. That list is managed by List Services Corporation.

Correction preview: For those of you who have written or called to complain about errors in your listing in the Folio: 500 (July 1, 1994, page 51), please be patient. We will publish a comprehensive correction in our next issue. We apologize for the angst the mistakes caused some readers.

COPYRIGHT 1994 Copyright by Media Central Inc., A PRIMEDIA Company. All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group