[This was originally composed as a comment on a post on Natan Slifkin's "Rationalist Judasim" blog. As a response thereto, the Slifkin's post should be read first.]
It seems that Slifkin thinks that Rosenblum should have apologized for more than he did. His apology was directed toward his mis-characterization of Lipman's actions during the Orot incident, and that apology, as you noted, was "great".
The apology part of Rosenblum's article was not lacking in the way that Lipkin notes Shafran's or Tropper's were. His problem seems to be that Rosenblum didn't apologize even further. The “all-out attack” which follows was largely dedicated to defending his original statements, which Lipman attacked in his article. Slifkin may not like Rosenblum’s opinions, but he is entitled to them, and the fact that Rosenblum had something to apologize for does not mean that he has to keep quiet about everything else.
Slifkin's rule about giving two reasons sounds nice, but it can only be applied once the second reason given has been disproven. Why assume that the focus, both in Rosenblum’s original article and in Lipman’s response, on the Orot incident was not a distraction from real issues which divide the two, but is, in fact, the real issue? (Better question – why assume that it is the major issue?) Attempting to demonstrate that Rosenblum’s apology was incomplete, even if the assertion is correct, is immaterial when considering whether or not the Orot incident is a distraction in the larger context of Rosenblum’s fault-finding with Lipman.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not taking Rosenblum’s side. But he apologized for a specific fault, and he should be given credit for that. It may have been poor form to apologize for one thing and attack for something else in the same article, but poor form does not a hollow apology make. It’s ironic that Rosenblum repeated his offense of not checking his facts at the end of his article. However, most of the information which he ignored is hardly stuff which is widely known. Poor journalism, yes, but a transgression? Perhaps a bit harsh.
(This may not be his only apology. As Harry Maryles pointed out even before the public apology, Rosenblum and Lipman may meet at the RCA convention, and a personal apology may be proffered there. Of course, a private apology may be given before that, which may remain between the two, not even being shared with personal confidants of either of the two.)
Rosenblum makes plenty of specious claims. Let’s not waste time on what we think of his apology, and focus instead on his charges.
Side point: The fact that Rosenblum was given, both by Slifkin and Michael Lipkin, correct information about the Orot incident may or may not be relevant. It all depends on what other "information" he received at the time from other parties, which we don't (and may never) know. It wouldn't be a major shock to find out that someone sympathetic to the extremists' cause was feeding Rosenblum misinformation at the same time that Slifkin and Lipkin were giving correcting that information. True, he could have done better by getting a tour of the area, but perhaps, in his eyes, Slifkin and Lipkin are biased, so why should he have trusted their version of the facts?