Excellent news indeed, and Tom's point about the opportunity to do some *positive* work is well taken. As a Brit, I found this para particularly fascinating: 'I also said “I think Kolawole did her due diligence for the story.” No, I don’t think she did, and nor did I. This has been a great learning experience for Kolawole, and she has been diligent in trying to repair her mistakes since it happened. She is young, is carrying a lot of responsibility for someone her age, and one of her direct supervisors recently left The Post, but she is not making excuses to me. I’m not making any either. I just didn’t do my homework.' I can't imagine any large-circulation media source over here even approaching that level of transparency. Cheers James On 01/03/2012 22:46, Thomas Haigh wrote:
Hello everyone,
Good news from the email battle. The Washington Post's Ombudsman has posted a lengthy and detailed retraction of his previous column. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/omblog/post/origins-of-e-mail-my-mea-cul pa/2012/03/01/gIQAiOD5kR_blog.html
This will also make my life easier, as I no longer have to try to present the actual history of email, correct the Post's errors in the original story and Ombusman blog, and debunk Ayyadurai all in one article. We can shift the focus to the real history, which is ultimately more productive.
Best wishes,
Tom
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members