« The View From Your Window | Main | Byte By Byte In Cuba » 28 Feb 2009 11:30 am The WaPo's High HorseIts new ombudsman homes in on the critical factual issue in the George Will column:
No such clarification occurred. But surely the deeper point is that 1979 is not a solid data point, and that the sources Will used clearly support the theory of global warming and do not see an increase in ice in the Antarctic as in some way disproving this. Au contraire:
This seems to me the key point. You can't use scientific evidence whose source believes it points to global warming to argue that it points against it - without some clarification, at least. But more interesting: if you define MSM reponse to factual errors by, say, ten days (let's call the measurement a Wieseltier), then the WaPo took 0.9 of Wieseltier to respond to an obvious error. The blogosphere responded at light speed. And the WaPo then had to pretend that it somehow exists in another more acceptable zone of media - and undertook its investigation and correction process independently of the vulgar - but factually accurate - blogs. Memo to WaPo: your days of thinking like this are over. If you don't want to go the way of the Rocky Mountain News, wake up and smell the competition. TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c45669e20112791454c128a4 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'The WaPo's High Horse'
And the Heat Goes On: Responses to George Will's Climate Change Misstatements (& WaPo's Passive-Aggressive Response) |
