EDITORIAL: Forbes' flippancy (11/03/96)

EDITORIAL

Forbes' flippancy

A month after it published the article "Tinderbox," Forbes magazine responded to the numerous letters it had received regarding Paul Klebnikov's report on Ukraine in a note from the editor titled "They protest too much."

James M. Michaels noted: "At first there was very little reaction, but a few weeks later our e-mail was jammed with angry letters. From the tone and the delay in responding, it was clear that most came from non-Forbes readers. Soon we understood why. A Ukrainian nationalist Web site gave our address and urged viewers to flood Forbes with complaints."

Forbes responded to that flood of complaints as follows: "Knock it off, folks. We love to hear from readers and take what they say very seriously. But organized campaigns by special interests sway us not at all. Down the road in a year or two we will revisit Ukraine, and if our forecast proves wrong, we will admit as much. We make a prediction, we follow up on it. Until then, we stand by 'Tinderbox.' "

Frankly, we think Forbes has seriously missed the boat on this one. The magazine is protesting about the protest - not responding to the substance of the complaints. Its response to comments about the grave inaccuracies in Mr. Klebnikov's report is, well, flippant.

After all, the issue here is not who is writing letters, or even the tone of those letters, but the accuracy of Forbes' report. And, given that among the many letters the magazine received were letters from the such solid scholarly institutions as the Harriman Institute at Columbia University and the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (the texts of which were published in this paper, respectively, on September 22 and in this issue), Forbes' comment about "special interest groups," "non-Forbes readers," a "Ukrainian nationalist Web site" and such is way off base.

The Harriman Institute's director, Mark L. von Hagen, and associate director, Alexander J. Motyl, are right: Mr. Klebnikov has done Forbes and its readers "an enormous disservice"; his article on Ukraine surely is an "embarrassment." David R. Marples of the University of Alberta is right to question (as he did in his commentary on the media and Ukraine published in The Weekly on September 29) "why a magazine with such a solid reputation among the international business community should indulge in what is manifestly disinformation." And the CIUS's director, Zenon E. Kohut, is right to state that the goal of Mr. Klebnikov's article "was clearly not to inform," but to "justify Russian interference in Ukraine and to undermine Western confidence in its future."

Forbes readers and even "non-Forbes readers" (whatever that is) deserve better. Fallacies are not countered by flippancy. Come on, Forbes, set the record straight and give us the facts.