
Spanish: 
La semana pasada, Joe Klein, un escritor
de la revista TIME escribió una historia de portada.
Por lo general, cuando los soldados
van a la guerra y regresan a casa,
muchos sufren de trastorno
de estrés postraumático.
Él escribió un artículo
diciendo que
hay una manera de frenar eso,
e incluso prevenirlo para muchos soldados,
si los involucran en proyectos
de voluntariado y servicio.
Y claro, si su señalamiento
es legítimo,
eso está muy bien:
pongamos los soldados en actividad
haciendo trabajo de campo.
Y dio ejemplos de soldados
que ayudaron a la gente en Oklahoma
a raíz de unos tornados allí.
Incluso, él se integró
a algunos de esos grupos.
Y luego, en medio de su columna,
mientras hablaba de todo esto,
y decía cómo todos estos
soldados y estos grupos
estaban ayudando a la gente de Oklahoma,
incluyó un pequeño comentario
tangencial que decía:
"Es curioso que no veas ningún grupo humanista secular
organizado repartiendo comida caliente".
Y luego continuó con su columna.

English: 
Last week, Joe Klein, a writer for TIME magazine
wrote this cover story about how, you know
usually when soldiers go off to war and they
come back home a lot of them suffer from post
traumatic stress disorder.
And he wrote this article saying that there's
a way to curb that and maybe even prevent
that from happening for a lot of soldiers
by getting them involved in volunteering and
service projects.
And hey, if he has a legitimate point there
that's a really cool thing.
Let's get the soldiers active and doing work
on the ground and he gave examples of soldiers
who helped people in Oklahoma in the wake
of the tornadoes there.
And he even embedded himself with some of
those groups there.
And then in the middle of his column where
he's talking about all this, he's talking
about how all these soldiers and these groups
are helping these people of Oklahoma he had
just a little tangential comment where he
said that you know "Funny how you don't see
any secular humanists groups, any organized
secular humanist groups delivering hot meals."
And then he went back to his column.

English: 
And it's like, why did you feel the need to
throw that in there?
Because one, there were organized secular
humanist groups delivering hot meals.
And on my website I listed a whole bunch of
them.
And not only that, there were non-organized
secular humanists, and atheists and people
who are non-religious and they all donated
money if they could do that if they were far
away.
If they were in town they donated their time
and their literal their body and they actually
did stuff for the victims.
So it was just this complete untruth that
he printed in there.
He didn't fact check.
He didn't use Google.
He didn't talk to any atheists or humanists
even though we were all out there.
So I was, I was offended, partly as an atheist
and more as someone who appreciates good journalism.
What are you doing?
So you know I called him out on it on my website,
and called him out on it on twitter, and a
lot of people joined me on that.
And then he issued an apology later in the
week, but it wasn't really an apology, he

Spanish: 
Y uno piensa:
¿por qué sentiste la necesidad
de poner eso ahí? Porque: 1)
Sí había grupos humanistas seculares organizados 
repartiendo comida caliente. En mi sitio web enumeré varios de ellos.
Y no solo eso, había humanistas seculares
no organizados, ateos y personas no religiosas
y todos donaron dinero, si podían,
o si vivían muy lejos.
Si estaban en la ciudad, donaron su tiempo y,
literalmente, su cuerpo.
Y realmente hicieron cosas por las víctimas.
Así que esa fue una total
mentira la que publicó allí.
No comprobó los hechos. No usó Google. No habló con
ningún ateo o humanista, a pesar de que todos estábamos allí.
Así que, me sentía ofendido, en parte como ateo,
y más como alguien que aprecia el buen periodismo.
¿Qué estás haciendo?
Así que lo critiqué
en mi sitio web, y
lo critiqué en Twitter,
y mucha gente se unió a mí.
Entonces, él emitió una disculpa
esa misma semana,
pero realmente no fue
una disculpa. Él dijo:
"Mucha gente me atacó
por decir

English: 
said "You know a lot of people attacked me
for saying there were no atheists there, well
I didn't say there were no atheists or secular
humanists there.
I said there were no ORGANIZED secular humanists
and atheists there."
Which isn't an apology because there were,
and we pointed that out again.
And he didn't respond to that at all.
So OK, that's Joe Klein, he's a lost cause.
But then you figure OK at least TIME Magazine
is going to issue some sort of apology like
"We're sorry this slipped through the editing
process.
We'll do our best to not let that happen again."
And then when the most recent issue came out
and they had a chance to apologize, TIME Magazine
said you know "our writer said secular humanists
were 'less likely' to be out there than religious
people.
And both sides weighed in."
First of all he didn't say they were 'less
likely', he said they "weren't there".
That's a big difference!
So TIME Magazine isn't even admitting what
the problem was.
Second, the rebuttals that they printed from
our side said- it didn't address the issue.

Spanish: 
que no había ateos allí.
No dije que no hubiera ateos
ni humanistas seculares allí.
Dije que no había humanistas
seculares ni ateos ORGANIZADOS".
Lo cual no es una disculpa, porque
sí los había, y eso lo señalamos.
Él no respondió a eso
en lo absoluto.
Pero está bien, eso es Joe Klein,
una causa perdida.
Y pensarías:
Bueno, al menos la revista TIME
va a emitir algún tipo de disculpa, como:
"Sentimos que esto se le haya escapado al proceso de edición".
Haremos todo lo posible para que
no vuelva a suceder".
Cuando salió la último edición
y tuvieron la oportunidad de disculparse,
la revista TIME dijo:
"Nuestro escritor dijo
que era 'menos probable' que los humanistas seculares
estuvieran allí, que la gente religiosa".
Y ambos lados opinaron.
En primer lugar, él no dijo que era "menos probable",
él dijo que "no estaban allí".
Es una gran diferencia. La revista TIME
ni siquiera está admitiendo el problema.
En segundo lugar, las refutaciones
que publicaron como de nuestro lado decían:
"No se abordó el tema".

Spanish: 
Sacaron a la gente de contexto
para decir:
"Estoy decepcionado",
"Qué desacertado
lo que dijo Joe Klein",
pero no explicaron cuál era el desacierto,
no explicaron
cómo llegó allí,
no explicaron por qué
no se disculparon por eso. Es evidente que
ni siquiera saben cuál es el problema.
Y esto, repito, me molesta, como alguien
que aprecia el periodismo, y que ellos
no sólo
cometan un error así,
sino que luego se nieguen a reconocer
y a corregir ese error. Es patético.
Así que, no sé, estoy pidiendo a la gente
que cancele sus suscripciones.
No tengo una,
pero me siento tentado a
iniciar una suscripción, sólo por el placer
de cancelarla de inmediato.
No puedo creer
que esto haya pasado.
Me llamo Hemant Mehta.
Escribo para FriendlyAtheist.com
y si tienes alguna pregunta,
por favor ponla en los comentarios.

English: 
They took people out of context to say "I'm
disappointed.
What an inaccurate thing Joe Klein said" but
they didn't explain what the inaccuracy was,
they didn't explain how it got in there, they
didn't explain why they didn't apologize for
it.
They clearly don't even know what the problem
is.
And it's just again, it bothers me as someone
who appreciates journalism that they would
not only make a mistake like that but then
refuse to acknowledge and correct that mistake.
It's just pathetic.
So, I don't know, I'm calling on people to
stop their subscriptions.
I don't have one but I'm kinda tempted to
start a subscription just for the sake of
cancelling it right away.
I just can't believe that that happened.
My name is Hemant Mehta.
I write for friendlyatheist.com
and if you have any questions, please leave
them in the comments.
