21
Dec
Time to Cover Up?
Is Time magazine’s “full” and “complete” transcript of its “Person of the Year” interview with Vladimir Putin a fraudulent cover up? It appears so. A glaring factual error was apparently edited out of the transcript in an attempt to spare top executives embarrassment over an exchange at the beginning of the recent chat between the Russian leader and Time.Inc editor in chief John Huey, Time managing editor Richard Stengel and deputy managing editor Adi Ignatius.
The official version of the transcript, as it appears on Time’s web site, is prominently labeled “Putin Q&A: Full Transcript.” The supposedly complete “Q&A” posted there begins thus:
TIME: Despite the cold war, Russia and the United States have found themselves aligned in many of history’s big conflicts: World War I, World War II and now, thanks in large part to your response to 9/11, there seems to be some alignment in the war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. With that history in mind, how do you envision the relationship between Russia and the U.S. going forward?
PUTIN: Indeed, Russia and the U.S. were allies during the two tragic conflicts of the Second and the First World Wars, which allows us to think there’s something objectively bringing us together in difficult times, and I think—I believe—it has to do with geopolitical interests and also has a moral component. Of course, the cold war marked a tragedy in relations between our two countries, and I wouldn’t want to see the vestiges of those relations prevailing in the future…
However, an earlier and more “full and complete” transcript of the interview, posted this week on MediaChannel.org, but which originated on the New Zealand site Scoop.co.nz, has an entirely different beginning, one that makes Time’s senior executives look, well, a bit foolish – as well as incredibly obsequious:
QUESTION: Mr. President! First of all, I would like to thank you on behalf of all my colleagues for your hospitality today. Second, we consider that it is a great honour for us to be able to conduct this interview. Your cooperation with Time magazine means a lot to us. Its result will be a serious material, and quite broad in nature and scope.
I want to start with the first question. You were born in 1946 - I was born in 1948. We belong to the same generation. We grew up in countries that lived with the unavoidable presence of the enemy. But historically, and in most major conflicts - World War One, World War Two - Russia and the United States have been allies. And now, in large part thanks to your role, Russia is cooperating in the struggle against Islamic terrorism.
In view of our history, how would you predict the development of relations between Russia and the United States as they resolve global problems in the future? How would our generation assess their future prospects for cooperation?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: If you will allow me, I will correct you a little bit on certain dates. I could not have been born in 1946 because at that time my father was suffering from the wartime wounds and my mother survived the Leningrad blockade. After they had lost two children and their health it was unlikely that they could have thought of having another child right away. And I think it is for that reason that I was born a little later, in 1952. But this does not change the essence of the problems and the issues you raised - this is absolutely correct.
Got that? The top executives at America’s leading putative newsweekly couldn’t even get the most basic fact about Putin right – namely his date of birth – something Mr. Google told me in just 3.2 (I timed it) seconds!
Admittedly, being off a mere six years about a world leader’s age isn’t, well, the end of the world. But Time’s embarrassing inability to get even this very basic fact correct certainly leads one to question its trustworthiness in other, far larger matters of fact and substance. Moreover, its apparent attempt to cover up the error – and to mislead the public by posting an incomplete transcript and billing it as complete – is even more egregious.
By the time I called Time for reaction, John Huey was unavailable, having already left for the holidays. Managing Editor Richard Stengel was still around, but failed to return several phone calls seeking a “full and complete” explanation of Transcriptgate. Back to you, Rick!
Interesting. But the much more essential point has been completely missed. Namely that Time magazine chose a vicious strong-arm head-of-state who has censored the Russian press, assassinated dissidents and political enemies, orchestrated false-flag acts of terrorism in order to maintain power in former Soviet states, and god only knows what else as their “Person of the Year.”
December 21st, 2007 at 12:31 pmgee, sounds like mr. jehoseafat has the man of the year mixed-up with george bush.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:45 pmputin is a great leader and will be found by history to be courageous and cool in the face of the insane murder and chaos aka the bush/cheney gang.
“a vicious strong-arm head-of-state …. assassinated dissidents and political enemies, orchestrated false-flag acts of terrorism in order to maintain power … and god only knows what else …!”
For a moment I thought I was reading about a different Head of State and not Putin. Amazing how things get transposed!
December 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pmalso, hopefully mediachannel didn’t expect time mag. to be honest or upfront or ethical or …
December 21st, 2007 at 3:49 pmwell, i dont gotta’ go on do i? chances are the interviewer was purposfully mistaken about the age thing.
Rven the most simple minded reporter can figure something is amiss in Luceland or are they bonding with the Bush Bros.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:48 pmCool catch.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:47 pmGood insight into Time’s decision-making process. Now we know why David Petraeus didn’t win — nobody knew how to Google his name to make sure it was spelled correctly.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:30 pm“Mr. President! First of all, I would like to thank you on behalf of all my colleagues for your hospitality today. Second, we consider that it is a great honour for us to be able to conduct this interview. Your cooperation with Time magazine means a lot to us.”–what a kiss-arse way to start an interview!!! This gives away any guise of objectivity. And what kind hospitality did the Kremlinites provide to these Time magazine top-honcho clowns faking as journalists???
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 pmPutin fits well in the time tradition. Hitler was man of the year several times in the 1930s
December 24th, 2007 at 10:19 amjehoseafat and joed forget that TIME’s Person of the Year is not based on the greatness of his or her character. As Daniel reminds us, even Hitler was chosen. And so was Stalin.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:20 pmJohesephat - what “false-flag acts of terrorism” did Putin orchestrate? The attack on school children by or taking an entire theater hostage by Chechen terrorists?
December 24th, 2007 at 12:44 pmOne can’t help but wonder if the editors/ interviewers didn’t commit a Freudian slip in their confusion over Putin’s birth year, since that’s actually when Dubya was born - July 6, 1946.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:00 pmre: Kiweagle
December 24th, 2007 at 2:26 pmOne wonders if Putin–an ex-KGB man likely used to memorizing dosiers on foreign VIPs–knew that. His responce could then be read as an (extremely) subtle dig at anyone whose ancestors were idle enough to have children in one of the darkest parts of the war against facism…
chris - read about the September 1999 Moscow apartment bombings.. funny, Time never mentioned any of the little “interesting” details of THAT case.
December 24th, 2007 at 5:17 pmYamin Bakht Said: “.. what a kiss-arse way to start an interview!!! This gives away any guise of objectivity. And what kind hospitality did the Kremlinites provide to these Time magazine top-honcho clowns faking as journalists???”
Guessing — “Mr. President! First of all, I would like to thank you on behalf of all my colleagues for your hospitality today. Second, we consider that it is a great honour for us to be able to conduct this interview. Your cooperation with Time magazine means a lot to us.” — is Timespeak for “Thank you for not spiking our refreshments with plutonium.”
December 24th, 2007 at 5:50 pmThe other bit of sophistry heard in defense of Time’s “man” is precedent, i.e., Hitler, Time’s Man of the Year in its January 2, 1939 issue.
Except, while Hitler had already initiated murderous mass persecution of Jews by 1939 (e.g., Kristallnacht, November 9-10, 1938), Hitler had yet to implement “The Final Solution.” Was the Reich’s sociopathic narcissist in the least bit, enthralled, emboldened or encouraged by Time’s selection?
Will Pootie-Poot be similarly inspired against dissidents, unfawning journalists, big, bad, nasty-evil Islamofascistterrorists?
Time can only hope.
December 24th, 2007 at 6:17 pmCalling Russia and the Unites States as allies in World War I is a bit of a stretch. Almost immediately after seizing power in November 1917, Lenin, Trotsky & Co. moved to take the country out of the war, and did so on March3, 1918. The U.S. declared war in March 1917, and sent a few hundred troops right away, but because Pershing insted on training his troops here before going over there, the Americans didn’t do much until after the Russians had given up on the Eastern Front. America was, moreover, an ally of France and Great Britain — Wilson insisted on the U.S.’s status being that of an associated power.
December 24th, 2007 at 8:32 pmTime couldn’t get their facts straight? Let’s be real, this was a QandA, not a finished fact-checked manuscript. If you pointed to a published article that had that kind of inaccuracy, then you can accuse them of not getting their facts straight.
The editors were sitting in front of a very intimidating man — possibly one of the most intimidating men in the world, I sure as hell would probably say a goof or two out of nervousness. It’s not like they had a laptop in front of them and were running to “Mr. Google” before asking every single question.
As for them acting “obsequious,” this is a common interviewing tactic for journalists to use when speaking to one who is openly hostile to the press — and we all know that Mr. Putin isn’t necessarily the most journalism-friendly person. If the interview subject can be led to think you’re on his side than often he’ll speak more candidly and give you more rope with which to hang him for the article. A good interviewer will often warm up to the more difficult hard-hitting questions. One who leads in with them will just cause the person to clam up or walk out. Believe me, I’ve conducted interviews for hundreds of articles — if you simply act like an asshole then people just refuse to answer you.
As for them editing the content of their questions — eh, they probably should have refrained from this, but just look at the transcript anyway. I could tell that this wasn’t literally the “full transcript” because it’s very obvious that the introduction was taken out. Nobody sits down with a subject and then fires off a question right away.
But either way, it’s one thing to shave off some rhetoric and another to change it completely, the editors should have either left that entire part out or print it as they said it.
December 24th, 2007 at 8:54 pmWhen one considers that Putin is from the KGB, is a martial arts expert, and is authoritarian to the bone, he must have been amused by the sycophants of Time. Putin could not have asked for a more stereotypical right wing twit to cower before a tyrant. I suppose one cannot fault the editor of Time; after all, his magazine behaves in the same obsequious manner toward the current administration.
I wonder if the “free press” will ever get over itself and get back to work.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:16 pmSimon,
There is an enormous difference between realistic humility and the gamey subserviance that Putin saw through.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:25 pmCuriously the original opening is much better than the edited one - in almost every respect. Sure, it starts of wrongly but what Putin makes of the error is interesting. Well, seems Time’s editors have lost any journmalistic instincts, they just want to look ‘cool’.
December 25th, 2007 at 3:36 amTo paraphrase the composer F.Zappa
December 26th, 2007 at 1:20 pm“So then he Pooted forth a perfect green rosetta “(stone). (From Joe’s -Stalin’s Garage)
Putin was an interesting choice for PotY, but I don’t think his selection really fit TIME’s criteria. Really, it should probably should have gone to Al Gore or Gen. Petraeus.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:02 amWhy are journos allowed to retroactively clean up their questions when they wouldn’t (generally) do so for the interviewed subject.
Oops - except they do. (Clean up Bush’s grammar in quotes, that is.)
But if most subjects said something silly, the journos would have the right to leave it in. But funny, apparently the rules generally work in their favor.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:42 pmI read that whole Time interview. You always know there’s a lot not being said, and that the reporting itself is going to be heavily edited.
Everything is so politically sensitive in that kind of situation. Putin is a man who doesn’t flinch over rolling a few heads, and he is under no obligation to Time. In fact, he did abruptly end the interview before the dinner they had scheduled was complete.
So you have to realize that Putin is parsing what he says to the American press, and then after that the reporters and editors parse through it too.
The reporters are under the gun, the editors are thinking about the political status quo as much (or more than) they are thinking about an accurate portrayal of the man, and Putin is only going to be candid to the degree he feels it furthers his own image.
So that’s what you get. The prescription for the reader is to take it with a big grain of salt.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:35 am“Ego of the Year”
January 14th, 2008 at 12:10 am