The Globe's Here . . . Substantially

IN CLAIMING VICTORY in John R. Lakian's recent lawsuit against The Boston Globe, Globe Editor Michael C. Janeway proudly called the jury's decision a victory for the press because the article in question was found to be "substantially true."

So much for the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The substantial truth is apparently good enough for The Boston Globe.

And that's pretty reassuring coming from the editor of a newspaper Time magazine last year called one of the 10 best in the country.

May be Time Meant to say The Globe was substantially one of the 10 best.

IF JANEWAY TRULY BELIEVES his words, then it is more than a scary thought to wonder how many stories The Globe passes off as nothing more than "substantially true."

And it is even scarier to wonder what standards editors of papers that aren't among the nation's top 10 hold their reporters to.

There is little doubt that every newspaper in the country makes mistakes along the way. Fore The New York Times to The Manchester Union-Leader to The Crimson, mistakes come with the territory.

But if any newspaper, or newspaper editor, is ever happy with those mistakes, or content with printing something that is "substantially true," then he ought to be working for the National Enquirer, not one of America's finest new-papers.

SURE, THE GLOBE correctly was vindicated of all attempts to suggest that its 1982 front-page story about then-GOP gubernatorial candidate Lakian was biased and malicious.

In answering a special verdict drafted by the judge, the jury ruled that the "gist of the article,"--which was widely considered to have derailed Lakian's campaign--was neither defamatory nor false.

The fact remains, though, that the jury did find three paragraphs of the 55-paragraph story in question were inaccurate, and published with such knowledge.

How, then, if he has any self-respect, and any respect for the product he edits, can Janeway claim a total victory?

ARE WE TO ASSUME from the jury's findings and Janeway's comment that when The Globe's reporters write long investigative pieces, he requires that only 94 percent of their paragraphs be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Maybe The Crimson ought to trumpet, that The Globe doesn't really care whether its pieces are completely accurate.

Following Janeway's logic, that's substantially true.

Also consider the post trial comments of Walter V. Robinson, the article's author. "We were under a deadline to produce a story," Robinson said. "With 20-20 hindsight, perhaps I would have taken a little more time writing the article."

As a result, it would be substantially true to print that The Globe values speed more than accuracy. I doubt, however, that that's really the whole truth.

NEVER MIND that Lakian's lawsuit was as absurd as Janeway's post-trial comment. Lakian ought to do us all a big favor and do some fact-checking on things like his upbringing, schooling, on things like his upbringing, schooling, military service and business career.

In the meantime, though, The Globe ought to do some fact-checking, too.

Until it does, Janeway can only trumpet that "The Globe's Substantially Here."