We were pleased to read in yesterday's Observer and NYT that Time Magazine managing editor Jim Kelly was still around. After all, he's been virtually silent about the Norm Pearlstine notes-disclosure-not-above-the-law decision. Kelly joined Time, Inc. EIC Pearlstine and his deputy editor, John Huey, for lunch in D.C. and dinner in New York to meet with Time staffers, who were encouraged to speak frankly (read: light into Pearlstine) for his decision (which they apparently did). He hasn't said much (on the record, that we've seen), presumably because he's in the unenviable position of having to tow a management line and still show solidarity with staffers who feel they've been sold out (one can glean that Kelly's thrown his lot in with staffers from this comment from a staffer: "...nobody in the room was happy, including Norm and John").

Kelly did say in the NYT piece that "Norm acknowledged he didn't stress enough how unusual this case was, and how wrong the Supreme Court was" and talked about instituting procedures to safeguard anonymity going forward (i.e. like not naming sources in emails): "We will prove that we're a magazine that confidential sources can trust." (The Observer's first paragraph suggests that will be an uphill battle, referencing a Time specific anonymous source's concerns about further dealings with the magazine.)

That article doesn't quote Kelly on anything specific to Pearlstine's decision but does have him taking umbrage to being called "a lifestyle bible" by David Carr (he points out that it totally is if your lifestyle involves interrogating prisoners and listening to "Genie in a Bottle" on repeat). He also says he's not surprised that the Cooper emails leaked.

That's pretty much it for the round-up of what Time managing editor Jim Kelly has to say about all this. I'd love to have missed something. Anything. If I have, send it on in.