Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Is TIME's Putin "Person of the Year" Cover Story a Fraudulent Cover Up?

Posted by Rory O'Connor, Media Is Plural at 1:37 PM on December 21, 2007.


A glaring factual error was apparently edited out of the transcript in an attempt to spare top executives embarrassment.
20071219t162138z01nootrrtridsp2internationaltimedc
Putin

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

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!

Digg!

Tagged as: putin, time magazine

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor is now completing AlterNet’s first-ever book, which is on the subject of right-wing radio talkers like O’Reilly, and will be available early in 2008. O'Connor also writes the Media Is A Plural blog.


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Waste of time.
Posted by: Hairog on Dec 21, 2007 7:25 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that was a stupid waste of time blog.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OTOh, this story here
Posted by: Mycos on Dec 22, 2007 2:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is making mountains out of molehills by trying to turn an embarrassing but inconsequential screw up into something the Title suggests has Jason Blair or Judy Miller-like implications. A non-story about a non-event. Ink.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not so fast! Not so inconsequential!
Posted by: ScoobyDoobyDoo on Dec 22, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My dad used to read this Time mag propaganda and many still do... almost as bad as Fox if you ask me. I've known for decades times infussion of spin and deceit. They've helped sell the war in Iraq as well as many others. It is a very well made point that should be brought to the attention of all those that still believe in the mainstream manufacturing consent for bovines media sewers like Fox and Time mag.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My generation!
Posted by: Declan on Dec 22, 2007 2:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Crap! That SOB was born in the same year as me?!
He and Bush alone make me ashamed to be a boomer. What a failed generation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The bigger confusion
Posted by: stevepick on Dec 23, 2007 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The birthdate issue was funny, sure, but what's this about the U.S. and Russia being allies in World War I? As I recall, the U.S. got into the conflict about the same time as Russia was negotiating peace with Germany, and there was some minor U.S. attempts at taking down the Russian revolution right at the end of that war. It's not very historically astute to claim the two countries teamed up in that particular world crisis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not allies. Occupation instead.
Posted by: frank69 on Jan 4, 2008 4:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the end of WWI, the Red Revolution had taken place in Russia. The US, Britain, Japan, and France sent troops into Russia trying to support the so-called Whites against the Reds. Of course, the intervention failed. As a result, the Soviet Union never trusted the West. Can you blame them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]