Mr. Wienke, help me out on this -- Re: FW: General Ashcroft make his move

[Petro]

At 7:51 AM -0700 7/30/01, Richard Stevens wrote:
>--- Jonathan Wienke <JonathanW at gbgcorp.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I get the NRA's American Rifleman magazine. The July
>> issue also has
>> an article about Ashcroft's letter, which does not
>> quote the rather
>> lengthy footnote. However, it does contain a legible
>> image of BOTH
>> pages of the letter, including the ENTIRE text of
>> the footnote. This
>> is hardly the action of an organization bent on
>> distorting Ashcroft's
>> view on the Second Amendment. Stupid editing on the
>> part of the
>> America's First Freedom team, perhaps, but not an
>> organization-wide
>> conspiracy.
>> 
>> Jonathan Wienke
>> 
>
>Mr. Wienke, 
>
>I paged through the entire July 2001 issue of American
>Rifleman, and maybe I'm just blind as the proverbial
>bat, but I don't see the article to which you refer
>that quotes the entire Ashcroft letter.  On what page
>is it?
>
>The July 2001 issue of First Freedom is the one
>featuring the Ashcroft letter -- that I have received
>thus far.
>
>On the point you raise:  maybe it was merely a bad
>editorial decision for the one magazine.  Fine, and we
>can forgive that.  But, ask this question:  in what
>kind of workplace environment could this kind of
>editing decision be made?  

	I used to work for a mid-sized and rather famous magazine as technical support for the designers and editors, as well I was (by training and work experience) a graphic designer. 

	To answer your question, the kind of workplace where something like this can happen is, for a magazine, a very "normal" kind of work place. Stories crop up late, or changes get made at the last minute. You're a bit under length so you scramble for filler, or you're a bit over, so you cut. Something happens to the server, so you're waiting to restore from backup and hope you haven't lost too much. Or one of a hundred different things.  

>Remember that more than one editor had to approve the
>final copy. This is not just a typo.  More than one
>person had to consciously decide to omit relevant
>material without telling the reader.  

	No, only one person had to make the *conscious* decision. All the other people simply had to not notice the lack. 

>I have to wonder if other sorts of "editing decisions"
>that massage the facts and distort the truth are being
>made ... and we readers don't know it.  

	If you read First Freedom (and my copy is currently on the tank awaiting further perusal) with a critical eye, and have an understanding of the underlying issues and numbers, it's often quite obvious that that magazine, while it may tell the truth, it does not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 

	But it's not supposed to. It's a propaganda rag for the NRA. All we should expect is that they don't deliberately lie. 

>Maybe it was entirely innocent.  Then NRA should
>promptly apologize, correct it and publish the full
>text in the following issue.  Let's see if they do.