>Thankfully, many of the negative criticisms directed at the magazine
>are now being dispelled. It is particularly gratifying to know that
>the Editor, John Freeman, with whom I had talked regarding my
>concerns, is open to ideas, is willing to listen and act on concerns,
>has responded to ideas and most of all has had the integrity to
>re-approach the CC affair in an open, honest and forthright manner. I
>have been scathing in my criticism before, because I felt it was
>wholly justified. Likewise, it is only fair now to give credit now to
>John and his team for making the efforts they obviously have made to
>improve the magazine to what is now a good standard.
At risk of being perceived as doing an "I told you so," let me point out just
The interview with CC that you cite as being fair and just and balanced *WAS
ALREADY IN HAND AND TYPESET AND APPROVED BY ME PERSONALLY* when the previous
issue appeared...before then, actually, because the production process runs
about 7-8 weeks for articles, though news features tend to be more timely.
So basically John and I put up with a great deal of accusations and mudslinging
and invective on not being fair when there was already a very fair ("too fair"
some have grumbled) piece in and slated to appear in the very next issue. The
brief piece in 3 was just a last minute addition to the whole thing, because it
couldn't go uncommented upon for that long to wait until issue 4.
My point being...we do try and do the right thing. We ask that you trust us to
continue doing so, and let us have the benefit of the doubt until shown