Mr. Blechman, (and John Romano)
You say it was suggested, to you, that John's article was "ill founded, factually incorrect, written in an unwarranted personal tone and from a biased perspective" but then you do not respond to these allegations other than to say that you "wish he hadn’t said some of the things he did" and that "perhaps his tone and poetic license were unfounded, and I can certainly understand how he could piss someone off. But I’m not going to fire him."
That's not a very clear explanation. Most notably, the veracity of John's statments was not addressed, nor were your reasons for keeping him on, if you believe he did fabricate information.
Then you go on to give the ubiquitous non-apology apology, whereby you do not apologize
on MD's behalf for any wrongdoing (even if you claim you cannot apologize for your employee), but only say that "if any of our readers ever perceived incorrectly that MD had an agenda, which included persistent and misguided criticism of the Olympia contest, IFBB President Ben Weider and Weider Publications, I apologize."
So why would you (or anyone, for that matter) apologize for something you didn't do?
Here's how a real apology works:
"My magazine messed up. I apologize."
Here's the nascent If-Then form, which you have neatly adopted and slipped in under most reader's rader:
"If you misunderstood something I said, then I apologize for your lack of comprehension."
The pope just issued such a "non-apology" too. Not that I think he owes anyone a real apology, but to anyone with even a moderate intellect, receiving a non-apology is worse than no apology at all. The non apology not only exonerates the giver of any wrongdoing, but it suggests that the one receiving the apology is, in fact, the one who has erred.
Thanks,
Joe
