They're definitely accurate and by themselves may not seem to contradict each other. The problem arises when one looks at the very condemning statements Eldredge first said about the same exhibit he used as a backdrop in the TV interview.
You may notice those who disagree with me keep referring to the horse exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History as a poor representation. They don't use Eldredge's extremely condemning words from the 1979 interview.
Why is that? Well, I can understand someone not using the worst case scenario to support their position. The real problem is, they haven't read the original transcripts. Since I can't find all my transcripts I'm re-ordering what I can't find, this time including the video. At least I've read the originals multiple times, even letter for letter as I put some on disk. Have you heard from anyone else that's read the original transcripts?
Eldredge was talking about some imaginary stories of evolution in school textbooks during the 1979 interview with Sunderland. Among other examples, Eldredge referred to the horse exhibit on display at the American Museum of Natural History as one of those imaginary stories.
Do you realize what he said? The horse exhibit that he's standing in front of and talking about during his TV interview is so blatantly incorrect, he refers to it as an "imaginary story."
Not just imaginary, it's "lamentable" or deplorable. So on February 14, 1981, Eldredge had his chance to make his case for evolution. He could have picked any example he wanted to support his theory.
What does he use for a backdrop and what does he discuss as evidence for evolution? The linear horse exhibit on display at the American Museum of Natural History. This is the same exhibit he said was in particular, "speculative."
This is the same exhibit he called "lamentable" or deplorable.
This is the same exhibit he referred to as one of the "imaginary stories" in school textbooks.
Eldredge said the horse is a good example of evolution while using the imaginary, deplorable, speculative linear horse exhibit as a backdrop. That in itself is deceptive. Then he referenced the exhibit in the interview and discussed how one in the linear series transitioned to another. Are you really saying you don't see a contradiction here?
It's a completely separate matter to make the statements:
The horse is a good example of evolutionThe horse exhibit is deplorable, speculative and an imaginary story
If the same person made both statements, and then while standing in front of the exhibit mentioned in the second statement the same person references the linear fossils as if one transitioned to another, you've got a contradiction. And that's exactly what we have.
You need the substance, not the hyperbole, of Eldredge's early objection from which you say he changed his story. Furthermore, by now you need that substance to be something other than George Gaylord Simpson's critique of the linear Marsh conception, since