A notable apology from the editor of The Sun magazine

What follows is an email from Sy Safransky, editor of The Sun, a US political magazine, to subscribers. There are some notable elements in this apology related to recovering from a mistake (Chapter 1 in the Mistake Bank book), which I will enumerate after the email. [The full interview referred to in the email is here.]

The Sun owes an apology to David Krieger, Leslee Goodman, and our readers. In our January 2013 issue we published an interview by Goodman titled “Indefensible: David Krieger on the Continuing Threat of Nuclear Weapons.” In it, Krieger is quoted as saying that the path to global security “can only be through unilateral nuclear disarmament.” He never said that. One of our editors made the error of inserting the word unilateral into Krieger’s statement. In foreign-policy circles, suggesting that one country abolish its nuclear arsenal while others maintain theirs is widely considered unrealistic and counterproductive. We thus misrepresented a central aspect of Krieger’s views. The mistake didn’t get past Krieger, however. When we sent him the interview for a final review, he asked that we replace the word unilateral, which he’d never used, with total. We assured Krieger we would make that change. Then, regrettably, we neglected to do so. I couldn’t be more chagrined at the careless way this was handled. In an effort to make amends, we’ve posted the full text of the corrected interview on our website. We are sending a reprinted version of the interview to hundreds of nuclear-disarmament activists, national-security experts, and others with whom Krieger has worked over the years. We’ll also provide copies for Krieger to distribute at upcoming conferences and for any Sun reader who requests one. (Please write to Molly Herboth at The Sun, 107 North Roberson Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 or e-mail molly@thesunmagazine.org with your mailing address.) Accuracy matters to us. This is why each issue of the magazine is copy-edited, proofread, and fact-checked by multiple editors and proofreaders, and then scrutinized a final time before it goes to print. In this instance, the error got past all of us. (For the record, our veteran proofreader wasn’t available to work on this issue.) As The Sun’s editor and publisher, I bear ultimate responsibility for every word that appears in the magazine. I know what “unilateral nuclear disarmament” means but read right past it. I deeply regret my mistake. Krieger was gracious and forgiving with us. I invited him to clarify his position for our readers, and he sent us the statement that appears below. Sy Safransky Editor and publisher Raising awareness of the continuing threat of nuclear weapons has been my primary focus for three decades as cofounder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Neither I nor the foundation has ever called for unilateral nuclear disarmament. Thus, I was shocked to see myself quoted in The Sun as saying just that. What I said was “The path to security can only be through totalnuclear disarmament.” Why does it matter? Because to call for unilateral nuclear disarmament is to ask that one nation eliminate its arsenal, leaving itself vulnerable to other countries’ nuclear weapons. This is neither realistic nor politically feasible. It is also not sufficient. I do not ask any country to take such a risk. What I ask is for the countries of the world — particularly the nine that now have nuclear weapons — to engage in negotiations with the goal of total nuclear disarmament. I believe that the U.S. can lead the way, using its influence to bring other nations to the negotiating table, where together they might arrange for the phased, verifiable, and irreversible elimination of all nuclear weapons. It is unlikely that the U.S. will initiate such negotiations, however, unless its citizenry demands it. We must awaken to the danger and organize to abolish nuclear weapons as though our very lives depend upon it — because they do. There are still some nineteen thousand nuclear weapons in the world, and the use of even a small number of them would have catastrophic consequences. Atmospheric scientists tell us that just one hundred Hiroshima-sized nuclear detonations in a war between India and Pakistan, for example, could lead to a global famine, causing hundreds of millions of deaths. Unilateral nuclear disarmament is not what we seek at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. What we seek is a rational solution, and when it comes to nuclear weapons, the only rational number is zero. That means total nuclear disarmament. It is one of the overarching issues of our time, and your voice can make a difference. If you would like to play a role in securing a future free from the threat of nuclear annihilation, join us online at www.wagingpeace.org. David Krieger Click here to opt out of receiving e-mails or to manage your e-mail settings. Copyright © 2013, The Sun Publishing Company, Inc. 107 North Roberson Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Privacy Policy

Here's what is really good about Safransky's apology:

1. Timely. The January 2013 issue is still current. He didn't wait till time had passed, and  
2. Public & accessible. It was sent to every subscriber, rather than being buried on a page deep in the print magazine or website.
3. Shows a sense of agency. "I deeply regret my mistake." Not the editor's mistake (inserting a word into the quote), or the proofreader's mistake, or anyone else's. The buck stops with Safransky, and he takes responsibility.
4. Authentic & personal. There are no weasel words or sliding around the truth. There's just a touch of the passive voice - "I couldn't be more chagrined at the careless way this was handled" - but, after all, apologies are hard.  [Here's a less successful one.]
5. Fair & generous. Safransky includes Krieger's critical note right in the email, allowing him to correct the record and provide his own context.

I hope many leaders read this apology and absorb its lessons. They may be in a position to do this themselves one day.

[Thanks to Amy for sharing this.]