RSS
Home
George Will's critics issue correction
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
George Will has a different interpretation of the research than the scientists he cites.
A remarkable thing happened today: scientists and journalists who have demanded a correction from Will have had to issue their own.
The problem came when those writers and scientists, while criticizing Will's column, failed to check to see if the organization Will cited, the Arctic Climate Research Center, actually existed. It does not. The center was the invention of Daily Tech's Michael Asher, who's misleading post was picked up by John Tomlinson, and then, apparently, so did George F. Will:
Tomlinson didn't bother to check if Asher knew what he was talking about and (even though knew the source didn't know what he was talking about) neither did I, when I copied the wrong name for the Illinois research group in my post on Tomlinson's column. George F. Will did exactly the same thing in his much-criticized column on Feb. 15, by aping Tomlinson's plagiarized reference.
There is, in fact, a group of polar science researchers at the University of Illinois known as the Polar Research Group. The error was small enough (or, small in comparison to the distortions of their data) that the group didn't bother to point out the confusion in Asher or Will's piece when they issued a statement correcting the record on their research.
It appears we have made the same error in this post, which we've now corrected. Like we said at the end of the post, "when we make a mistake, it's an accident," and we do try to make amends. Chris Mooney has issued a correction as well, and so has Carl Zimmer and Michael Tobis. See, Fred? See, George? It's not that hard.
A small matter? As James Hrynyshyn concludes:
[T]here's nothing petty about getting names correct. It is something that every responsible journalist should make a top priority. And there is really no excuse for not doing so. I've corrected my blog post, and my like-minded colleagues in the blogosphere have as well. Have Asher, Tomlinson and Will? Not the last time I checked. And that's the difference between those who are truly interested in getting at the truth, and those who only want to push an ideological wedge between their readers and reality.
All of which brings up a question that is being asked more and more frequently these days: Has the blogosphere become more responsible than the mainstream media?
Carl Zimmer asks the same question: "[H]ave we really reached the point now where blogs [shudder] are becoming more conscientious about corrections than the editorial pages of the Washington Post?"
Let me try to answer if for you: Bigfoot Hunters are more conscientious about corrections than the Washington Post.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
