When Bigfoot hunters have more integrity than the Washington Post

February 23, 11:35 PMSkepticism ExaminerDylan Otto Krider

Some of you may be aware that famed Bigfoot hunter Loren Coleman and I locked horns yesterday. Well, Coleman issued an apology, and I accept it:

Sometimes people find themselves in uncomfortable places. Dylan Otto Krider, not a Scientologist, once accepted an award, as shown above. I don’t know how he felt that day. I hope he got a large fiscal stipend for his appearance.

I only know how uncomfortable I feel, right now.

Today, I wrote a posting based on incorrect information. I was given text and read words as if the entire material was all his. Instead the distinction had been stripped out and the difference between internally quoted text and Dylan Krider’s own words was invisible to me. I now understand my earlier critiques had more to do with a National Geographic writer who was quoting Michael Dennett, than Mr. Krider’s words. I take total responsibility, however, for the mistake, basing my comments on words that were not his, and I wish to apologize to Mr. Krider.

For those that wish to read his blog, see the original source, here: “When people you respect believe in Sasquatch” by Dylan Otto Krider, National Skepticism Examiner, February 20, 2009.

And while we're burrying the hatchet, I think Coleman had a point about my overstating things. What struck me about his quick retraction is what a stark contrast it was to George F. Will, whom I have been taking to task for refusing to correct unquestionable misrepresentations of scientific data.

So let me take a moment to explain why corrections are so important. When someone issues a correction, it shows they care that what they say is correct. By moving quickly to correct a misstatement, it shows you are concerned with accuracy. It means you are out to speak the truth, as you see it.

What is so infuriating to me about George Will's column and the Post's willingness to assist Will's distortions is that it so clearly demonstrates that they, in stark contrast to the Cryptozoologists, don't care if what they print is correct. Will knows what he's saying is false, yet he continues to say it, time and time again, long after he's been corrected by the sources he cites because all Will -- and his enabling editors -- cares about is the effectiveness of his propoganda. It's not accuracy, but whether it furthers an ideology, that motivates him.

How do we know?

Because Will and the Washington Post, rather than correcting their errors, would like to claim that George Will, and not the scientists who collected the data, is a better authority on what their numbers say.

Yet the investigators of Sasquatch, long a target of Skeptics with a capital 'S', have demonstrated more academic integrity and concern for the correctness of what they say than one of the most respected newspapers in the country.

I wonder if Skeptics ought to change their focus. The greatest threat to reason and the earnest pursuit of objective reality are not those who actually attempt to gather evidence of what we consider to be peculiar beliefs, but the mainstream media who is more concerned with protecting a columnist's ego than informing its readership.