Subject: Re: GLJ Editor Responds to Conspiracy Theories

From: D B McCullagh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 11:46:41 -0700 (PDT)

[Phil's response to the GLJ editor's claims, forwarded to the mailing list
at [email-masked]. -D]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 11:16:23 -0500
From: Philip Elmer-DeWitt <[email-masked]>
To: D B McCullagh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: GLJ Editor Responds to Conspiracy Theories

VI: If the Boston Globe printed that, they were wrong. Of course I had the
whole study. I never said I didn't.

V: This is tricky. Rimm was the one who insisted I not show the study to
anyone else, but he said he was doing it in GLJ's name, since they actually
held the copyright. I don't know if this true or not. In any event, we had
our own reasons to fear that someone would get hold of the study before we
could go to press. Look what happened this week to Colin Powell's book!
(See today's NYT business section.)

>V.  RUMOR:  TIME was restricted from having the study independently
>reviewed by an agreement with Law Journal.
>     FACT:  The Law Journal had no such agreement with TIME.  Isn't TIME
>the one who referred to it as an exclusive?
>
>VI.  RUMOR:  In a Boston Globe article Elmer-DeWitt claimed that the Law
>Journal denied him from seeing the entire study before the TIME cover
>story went to press.
>      FACT:  Elmer-Dewitt had two copies of the study (in its entirety)
>before the cover ran (one prior to pagination and one after pagination).
>Further, even if that were true, would any self-respecting journalist
>admit to writing a cover story on a study that he had never even seen in
>its entirety?

---------------------------------------------------------
Philip Elmer-DeWitt                                              [email-masked]
TIME Magazine                                  http://www.pathfinder.com/