Wash. Post defends George Will’s climate change denial: We ‘check facts to the fullest extent possible.’
By on Feb 19th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Wash. Post defends George Will’s climate change denial: We ‘check facts to the fullest extent possible.’
The Washington Post has refused to run corrections on George Will’s recent “global cooling” column, despite its “stunning, boneheaded, egregious errors.” In response to a ThinkProgress request, Washington Post ombudsman Andy Alexander “sought clarification from the editorial page editors”:
Basically, I was told that the Post has a multi-layer editing process and checks facts to the fullest extent possible. In this instance, George Will’s column was checked by people he personally employs, as well as two editors at the Washington Post Writers Group, which syndicates Will; our op-ed page editor; and two copy editors.
Read Alexander’s full response at the Wonk Room.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bayh
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Supreme Court
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Basically, I was told that the Post has a multi-layer editing process and checks facts to the fullest extent possible. In this instance, George Will’s column was checked by people he personally employs, as well as two editors at the Washington Post Writers Group, which syndicates Will; our op-ed page editor; and two copy editors.
Sounds like he’s saying something along the lines of “nobody could have predicted® that George Will had his facts wrong”.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:03 pmWill should stick to writing about Baseball. He is good at that. Politics, the Enviroment, and the Economy?
Not so much.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:05 pmLooks like the Post is having the same problem with this reichwingnut that the NYT had with their reichwingnut liar, Billy Kristol, the bloody chickenhawk. Reichwingnuts are liars first, columnists second.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:07 pmwell, they “checked” in all the wrong places…
imagine that.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:08 pmSo just like Bush, Will employs the people checking his ‘facts’. So maybe, just maybe, the assistants checking the facts might not want to bother or anger their boss so they say the facts all check out. They keep their jobs, the boss gets some press time and the readership remains wrongly informed. Sounds like a GOP operation to me….
February 19th, 2009 at 7:09 pmi just heard jim kramer say he was once a “shop steward” and a “lefty” once… proof please… let’s see those credentials…
and the car makers need to be “broken”… maybe he meant unions…
probably both.
(on hardball)
February 19th, 2009 at 7:11 pmThis is the justification for saying that George Will’s information was correct??!!!??!!
You have got to be sh*tting me.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:14 pmgee….
The lying liars lie…
And this is “news”?
Someday, we will need to change our focus – it isn’t about the lies or the latest pundit/politician that tells them.
Its about the media – a structural bias that allows them to “catapult the propaganda”.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:20 pmI am shocked anyone would pay any attention at all to George Will, who is beyond irrelevance. I quit listening to that pouty mouth when he dissed in print the late poet, Allen Ginsberg — and only because Will knew that he would be forgotten within a few years of his death, whereas Vidal and Ginsberg and Burroughs will be remembered and read a full century on.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:22 pm“Basically, I was told….blah blah blah.”
Another useless ombudsman.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:23 pmWash. Post defends George Will’s climate change denial: We ‘check facts to the fullest extent possible.’»
- – If only Will and his “fact checkers” had a source available to them whereby they could quickly and electronically access facts pertinent to any subject and from anywhere on the planet. If only that technology existed…
February 19th, 2009 at 7:24 pmBasically, I was told that the Post has a multi-layer editing process and checks facts to the fullest extent possible. In this instance, George Will’s column was checked by people he personally employs.
Isn’t it nice to have your own personal yes-men?
We need a ‘truth in reporting’ or ‘journalistic integrity’ act of some sort. It is amazing that newspapers are allowed to print outright lies without first being forced to issue a disclaimor that states it is either ’satire’ or ‘for entertainment purposes only.’
February 19th, 2009 at 7:26 pmOnce an enabler, always an enabler.
Editors at lesser daily newspapers have been fired for much less. Then again, I didn’t know the Washington Times had any say at the Post.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:28 pmWould I be naive and funny to inquire whether the Post has a Science Editor?
(’course I would)
February 19th, 2009 at 7:29 pmI guess that means the Washington Post’s fullest extent possible is inadequate, not up to standard.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:30 pmGeorge Will’s column was checked by people he personally employs, as well as two editors at the Washington Post….
….well, how could he be wrong if HIS PEOPLE that HE PERSONALLY employs are checking his false facts…
….hint, they do what they are told to do, don’t want to be standing in those LONG unemployment lines, now do they.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:32 pmWash. Post defends George Will’s climate change denial: We ‘check facts to the fullest extent possible.’»
– - The current regime at WaPo isn’t exactly in the mold of Woodward & Bernstein, circa 1974.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:33 pmWill they publish a rebuttal by someone who actually works for University of Illinois’ ACRC?
What if it’s thoroughly fact-checked by two-editors, two copy editors, an op-ed page editor, a partridge in a pear tree and, oh yeah, all the people ACTUALLY employed by the Arctic Climate Research Center and familiar with the data that Will misrepresented and misunderstood?
February 19th, 2009 at 7:35 pm“fullest extent possible”
_____
WaPo morons.
There is no such word as “fullest,” and “extent” simply implies “full.”
February 19th, 2009 at 7:35 pmAre these reichwing retards showing their level of ignorance these days or what?
They’re a defeated gang of impotent thugs in search of an identity.
Sadly, the singular identity they all seem to have is that of being a total “moron”.
Add George Will to the list of ignorants who don’t believe in science. George Will probably still thinks the earth is flat. What a total donkey’s ass.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:36 pmWe ‘check facts to the fullest extent possible.’»
Well, if that’s the “fullest extent possible” for a newspaper, WT belongs in the loony bin. I don’t want to read crayon scribblings in the morning, I want the facts.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:37 pmThere goes George Will’s reputation – ker plunk!
February 19th, 2009 at 7:37 pmIs the dude in the photo wearing a bra on his head?
February 19th, 2009 at 7:38 pmHe is horrid about GW — just staying with the official position of the right. He obscurs the real problem– that GW isnt a probability issue (is it real or not) at all — but an insurance issue instead — the costs are so high it doesnt matter what the probability is, we have to act.
I wish he had the guts to take on his own party for its anti-intelligentsia positions — he knows that ain’t right (too)!
February 19th, 2009 at 7:38 pmNewsAlert@letters.washingtonpost.com, letters@washpost.com, georgewill@washpost.com, jimhoagland@washpost.com, ombudsman@washpost.com, kurtzh@washpost.com, abramowitz@washpost.com, achenbachj@washpost.com, allenh@washpost.com, aranam@washpost.com, argetsinger@washpost.com, balzd@washpost.com, barrj@washpost.com, bennettp@washpost.com, benningv@washpost.com, beyersd@washpost.com, bonesteelm@washpost.com, priestd@washpost.com, Ignatiusd@washpost.com, robinsong@washpost.com, boustanyn@washpost.com, religion@washpost.com, brownw@washpost.com, castanedar@washpost.com, rajiv@washpost.com, chod@washpost.com, clarkp@washpost.com, cohenr@washpost.com, cohensh@washpost.com, coopermana@washpost.com, copelandl@washpost.com, davenportc@washpost.com, davisp@washpost.com, deyoungk@washpost.com, duttj@washpost.com, dvorakp@washpost.com, eggend@washpost.com, ahrensf@washpost.com, aizenmann@washpost.com, donovanc@washpost.com, givhanr@washpost.com,
February 19th, 2009 at 7:41 pmThe Ombudsman position was originally created to represent the readers of the paper. But it looks like the position evolved into merely being a corporate mouthpiece. Debora Howell was the Post’s most pitiful ombudsman ever—nothing more than a flack and a shill for management. In case after case (the Broder conflict of interest and the news blackout over Colbert’s appearance at the White House Correspondents Association come immediately to mind) she saw her job not to criticize management but to explain and excuse the paper’s actions to readers. Sadly, it looks like the new ombudsman, Andy Alexander, will continue to misinterpret the ombudsman role.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:44 pmHow come I get the feeling the Post’s ombudsman’s take on fact checking on the internet is limited to eBay, YouTube, Facebook and Google…that information + computer x internet = hard?
February 19th, 2009 at 7:45 pmGeorge Will’s column was checked by people he personally employs…
C’mon, are they seriously using this excuse?
Who would contradict the man who signs their paychecks? Least of all, Reichwingers, good bootlickers that they are.
…as well as two editors at the Washington Post Writers Group, which syndicates Will; our op-ed page editor; and two copy editors.
Which goes to show that birds of a feather flock together. What an incompetent lot.
Even giving the Washington Post editors all the benefit of the doubt -now that the factual errors have been brought to their attention, the intellectually honest attitude is to issue a) an apology and b) a correction.
So much for the “librul” media…
February 19th, 2009 at 7:53 pmWill is a RepubliCon stooge. The Post is MSM garbage.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:54 pm“to the fullest extent possible”
February 19th, 2009 at 8:07 pmWhich just means they could have sent out a brand new intern, who came back and said, I can’t find anything, and they can justify that the intern verified facts to the fullest extent that he could at the time, with the materiuals they allowed him to see.
Sounds like the Post could use a few copy editors with exposure to the sciences.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:08 pmooh, ooh, If y’all want to read a REALLY FUNNY STORY, about
February 19th, 2009 at 8:24 pmWill, check out Hullabaloo, and look for the story on the letter to Newsweek , by Noam Chomsky. I guarantee you will
laugh yo azz off.
Someone please show Will, his minions, and the rest of the divorced-from-reality crowd, how to use “the google”?
They obviously need a crash course on fact-checking in the age of “the internets”…
February 19th, 2009 at 8:34 pmBREAKING:
the NY POST “in it’s own fashion, has apologized”
- keith, on countdown
kinda sorta not…
February 19th, 2009 at 8:59 pmnow fire that editor.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:00 pm#16
February 19th, 2009 at 9:00 pmrec. You nailed him.
I love the blanket versions of denials. Not “we checked over that specific claim in that column” but instead just “we totally check all his columns.” Yeah, like Sarah Palin reads all the newspapers.
You’d think that if anybody was going to do any fact-checking at all, they would have actually checked the part of his column where he cites specific numbers from a listed source. That kind of sticks out as something to go look up, wouldn’t ya think?
.
George Will’s column was checked by people he personally employs…
How would WaPo know that those people exist if they’re not on their payroll and not in their office? “Oh yeah, I’ve got some people back at home who totally fact-check all my stuff for me, you can just go ahead and rush that to print.”
If you’re not going to fact-check his article, the least you could do is “fact-check” who his claimed fact-checkers are.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:32 pmSo you are telling me that FOUR DIFFERENT people fact checked his article and it didnt occur to ANY of them to contact the very group he CITED in the article? Either fire the fact checkers since they obviously dont know what the job entails or STOP LYING
February 19th, 2009 at 10:00 pmjkilvik Says:
Sounds like the Post could use a few copy editors with exposure to the sciences.
That has always been a problem with the press. Very, very few reporters have any sort of science background. And when an “event” happens that involves science (for example, the cleanup of a chemical spill or reporting on a finding from the local university), the reporter sent to cover it is chosen almost at random. So even if a reporter has a science background, there is nothing that makes that reporter to be the one to cover the occaisional science-related event.
Even at that, though, I wonder if the Wa. Post fact checkers are from my local TV station. They are actually running a segment called “Fact Checker” which they introduce with a spiel along the line of “Here at KXXX we go the extra mile. You asked about the no parking ordinance so we went the extra mile and called the city administrator………”
Making a phone call is now “going the extra mile”
February 19th, 2009 at 10:12 pmThat is no answer at all. So two people that Will employes and a group that syndicates Will do the fact checking. That is like putting Cox in as Chairman of the SEC. You get exactly what the boss wants. There is neither transparency nor incentive to correct errors. If fact, finding errors would be the sure way to lose your job. Will must have some kind of sweetheart contract to get away with the crap. But then he also got away with using Carter’s campaign documents to prep Reagan for his debate with Carter knowing full well the documents were stolen. He has been a sleezebag for decades.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:36 pmGive me a break. I could have fact checked Will’s article in about 5 minutes. Anyone who follows climate change is aware that his source is a kook.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:12 amSo the Washington Post publicly asserts that they believe it to be true?
February 20th, 2009 at 8:56 amThen we should view their science reporting on the same basis as George Will’s column–as completely untrustworthy? That their health news reporting can very well have lies and misattributions in their articles on lutein or cholesterol if they feel like it?
Why should anyone believe what the WaPo prints about science or technology or medicine?
What should be done is that, any time an online article is open to comment about these topics, this lack of commitment to accuracy should be pointed out, and that the writer is damaging his or her reputation by appearing in a newspaper that has no more responsibility to the truth than the Weekly World News.
Rick Weiss, senior science writer for the WaPo, is a fellow at the Center for American Progress. How does he feel?
At the risk of repeating myself…..
C R E D I B I L I T Y . . . . is a problem for newspapers !
Having intimate knowledge of how the “checking” process works, I can testify that bias and distortion of facts is very prevalent among the conservative philosophy.
Circulation problems ??? Hummm… wonder why?
February 20th, 2009 at 9:26 am…checked by two people he employees. Ok, now we know where Brownie and Skelator have relocaed.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:02 amThe University came out with a statement that Mr. Wills had his information wrong!!!!! The University also provided the correct information for the WP to which they still stand by the bull they wrote.
Do the editors at the WP think we are idiots????? I CANT BELIEVE THE DISCONETT BETWEEN THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC!!!
February 20th, 2009 at 11:41 amHow MANY layers of people have to screw up in their “fact-checking” before the Washington Post will admit that it published untruths?
February 20th, 2009 at 3:56 pm