WaPo Op-Ed Page A Fact-Free Zone?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:40:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Below, I wrote a post about a column by David Broder. I disagreed with it, but to my knowledge, Mr. Broder did not misstate any facts. The same was not true of a George will column published earlier this week. Despite this, the Washington Post has not issued a correction of these factual errors. Matt Corley at Think Progress explains:

On Sunday, the Washington Post printed a climate change denial column by George Will that contained several demonstrable falsehoods. Despite the loud chorus of critics pointing out Will’s factual flaws, Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt has refused to comment on the errors and the column has not received a correction. Will has another column in the Post today, but it too has no correction attached to it for his last column’s obvious factual mistakes.

More . . .

The Washington Post does a disservice to its Op-Ed columnists such as Broder, Robinson, Ignatius and others when they do not correct factual errors. It is one of many reasons why the Traditional Media is not trusted and why its influence continues to wane.

Speaking for me only

< Broder's Last Stand | California's Abyss Due To This? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

WaPo Op-Ed Page A Fact-Free Zone? | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Absolutely! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by hairspray on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:44:21 AM EST

: Yep. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by atdleft on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:46:21 AM EST

That's one reason why I don't even bother going to their site any more, only to be harrassed for my email and personal info just to read this non-factual crap.

Opinion (none / 0) (#3)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:47:20 AM EST

It is evidentially the opinion of WaPo that opinions that contain lies are fine because it is propaganda not news.

But, but, but... (none / 0) (#4)
by atdleft on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:48:50 AM EST

If WaPo has to actually correct factual errors in its Op-Ed page, how will they be able to print anything from Charles Krauthammer or Bill Kristol without a mile-long correction page? ;-)

All Op-Ed pages are garbage. (none / 0) (#5)
by Samuel on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:54:29 AM EST

Where's a good resource for this kind of material? I thought the matter was settled and we were the cause of all this - now I'm hearing about other planets in the solar system showing elevated temperatures in line with Earth. Anyone at least a psuedo-scientist that can lend some knowledge?

You lose a lot of credibility (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:00:31 PM EST

with comments like this.


He had all the credibility of the (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:19:30 PM EST

Von Mises Institute, to begin with, so....


I'm waiting for you to get back... (none / 0) (#9)
by Samuel on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:29:43 PM EST

about Hayek... you know the Nobel Laureate who disagrees with the theory of your favorite Nobel Laureate (you specifically requested I provide you with a nobel winner I suppose to legitimize my argument). I'd say the ignorant lose the credibility war. I strive to understand your point of view.

Can you explain the IS-LM model? I mean really, you disagree with me constantly and I doubt you have the first clue on these subjects. Actually you've indicated that any debate I bring up is irrelevant for the mere fact it disagrees with Paul Krugman.

That's called recklessness.

Come on - look at the comments I had and you had about Afghanistan and reconsider at least entertaining what I have to say.

My consistency of principals over these political subjects should speak to my credibility.


I have never seen you begin to (none / 0) (#10)
by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:34:59 PM EST

present an economic argument.
All you do is wave your hands.. very much as you are doing in this comment thread.
I don't post comments on economics because I don't know much about the subject. I am a mathematician, though, and I can follow numerical and analytic arguments---which you never present. Your comments are sophist and innumerate, as a rule.


That's just not true. (hand waving) (none / 0) (#12)
by Samuel on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:53:41 PM EST

Economics is a social science - you should not expect it to be modeled numerically. I mean take the IS-LM curve that is the basis for all this stimulus junk. It involves purposeful data aggregation in order to "model" the economy. As a mathematician you would agree that purposeful data aggregation of say "government spending" or "investment" won't give us any "values" that we can then confidently apply to remedy an economic situation.

For example: When Krugman spits out his multiplier values you should be interested in determining the r-squared of such a model (I believe they typically reside around .28).

Economics is the study of social interactions. The "market" is a term for a giant network of social cooperation. Recording economic data and using it as a basis for forming your assumptions and then creating a theory on that is backwards. You first create theory based on human interaction since that is what we're studying - then you study data and see if it reflects your model. All past economic data points represent an entirely unique culmination of causal inputs that number so large we cannot account for them in numerical models. There is no scientific basis for applying models based on past unique data sets to predict future unique data sets.

Keynesian economists comprise the modern vanguard of academic apologists for Socialist policies - was true in the early 20th century and it's true today.

Thusly I submit that my economic hand waving is more scientific than any numerical model you've seen. Now this isn't to say you can use economic data to calculate important values (like profit/loss).

Now that's what I call off topic.


: Meant (none / 0) (#14)
by Samuel on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 01:00:04 PM EST

"this isn't to say you can't use economic data" towards the end

Your point? (none / 0) (#8)
by Samuel on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:23:53 PM EST

Ok most op-ed articles are outlined garbage when discussing political issues as a result of overly aggressive and highly illogical rightest/leftist debate tactics - augmented by hate mongers on the internet.

Nasa has reported elevated temperatures within the solar system - I'm just looking to see if anyone knows what this means or to what degree it is true.


By the way, from where does the (none / 0) (#11)
by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:44:29 PM EST

relevance about your question on temperatures derive? From NASA? From a right wing blog?
Tough question?


Bigot. (none / 0) (#13)
by Samuel on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:56:59 PM EST

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html

Why would you post in that way? Drop the us against them rightest/leftist freak out thing.

Like I said. I don't know what this means. I was wondering if anyone is somewhat versed in this kind of thing.


Apparently you are pretending not to (none / 0) (#15)
by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 02:29:26 PM EST

understand my question.
In a discussion of global warming on earth, you mention data about temperatures on other planets.
Why is that relevant? You brought the data into this discussion---not NASA.


: Stop accusing me of things please. (none / 0) (#18)
by Samuel on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 02:51:25 PM EST

I don't know if it is necessarily significant.
I said:
"I thought the matter was settled and we were the cause of all this - now I'm hearing about other planets in the solar system showing elevated temperatures in line with Earth. Anyone at least a psuedo-scientist that can lend some knowledge? "
It would seem that if other planet's that do not have human beings on them have rising temperatures that maybe the effect we're having on earth is spreading to other planet or perhaps we can use these other planet temps as controls to measure the effect of humans (though there's millions of other variables). I didn't put on any fronts - I asked if there was anyone who could shed some light.
Please treat me with respect - once again I believe I've been consistent on my approach of all subjects with you.

You have a record of (none / 0) (#17)
by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 02:41:40 PM EST

posting highly tendentious opinions (e.g. the opinion of the Libertarian Rothbard on Roosevelt) without providing any context. A cursory search on google shows that right wing blogs have been discussing how warming on Mars refutes the notion of human caused global warming on Earth.
Now, either your comment on Mars has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion in this thread, or you were trying to raise a question about global warming.
Quite obviously, it was the second.
Why are you being coy?


: So you're proposing... (none / 0) (#19)
by Samuel on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 03:03:41 PM EST

I read right-wing blogs AND Rothbard then come here to bother YOU.
"You have a record of posting highly tendentious opinions (e.g. the opinion of the Libertarian Rothbard on Roosevelt) without providing any context." - Isn't you giving the example of Rothbard on Roosevelt as 'tendentious out of context' you just being 'tendentious out of context'? And when did I even use anything Rothbard had said re FDR? Can you be more specific (and comment on it back in that thread)?
"Now, either your comment on Mars has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion in this thread, or you were trying to raise a question about global warming." - Thread was about fallacious global warming arguments - I asked if anyone could shed light on a potentially fallacious argument. I have no idea what that sentence means.
The only reason I'm on this site is because I used to read it all the time when I was a progressive. I'm just trying to have spirited debates and not be attacked - but feel free I suppose. If I'm a troll - ignore me and I'll go away.

one should never (none / 0) (#16)
by cpinva on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 02:37:09 PM EST

question the rightness of a valued member of the "village". hence, dr. will is to be always accepted as correct, whatever the subject matter.

thus it is, thus it has ever been.

yes samuel, there is a krugman. he resides in all of us, deep down, in our better natures. hayek has been consistently proven wrong, by history. heck, even recent (reagan, bush, bushII) proves him wrong.

krugman, on the other hand, has been proven right (see: FDR, great depression). economics is a blend of math and social sciences (that's where all those projections come from, but you knew that already), and hardly perfect. but then, what field has attained perfection?

: Sheesh! Name-drop 'Hayek' in a (none / 0) (#20)
by wurman on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 05:40:44 PM EST

global warming thread & my mind's eye supplies the actress 'Salma' of Mexico.

Being Right (wing) means (none / 0) (#21)
by Jake Left on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:51:38 AM EST

never having to say your wrong.