This started as a problem for Will, his direct supervisors, and the Post's ombudsman. But now that the Post as a paper is standing behind Will's deceptions, I think it's a problem for all the other people who work at the Post. Some of those people do bad work, which is too bad. And some of those people do good work. And unfortunately, that's worse. It means that when good work appears in the Post it bolsters the reputation of the Post as an institution. And the Post, as an institution, has taken a stand that says it's okay to claim that up is down. It's okay to claim that day is night. It's okay to claim that hot is cold. It's okay to claim that a consensus existed when it didn't. It's okay to claim that George Will is a better source of authority on interpreting the ACRC's scientific research than is the ACRC. Everyone who works at the Post, has, I think, a serious problem.This is true, in some sense, though I think too broad. A great story, broken by the Post, will still be a great story. Still, it's amazing that the Post is standing behind Will. One reason blogs are starting to eclipse edit pages is that there is an independent mechanism to hold bloggers accountable. I can say all the stupid things I want, but I know that there is an industry out there waiting to take me to the woodshed. This is a good thing.
But more than that, as Matt points out, in any form of journalism, a writer arguing that he better understands the research than the actual experts who compiled the research, is suspect. Any editor worth his title would at least throw up a red flag. George Will isn't held to that standard because he's a brand unto himself. The temptation is to think he's gotten away with something. I'm not so sure. Will always enjoyed a veneer of indy respectability, someone who stood out amongst the babbling diarrhea merchants. With this piece, and with his inability to be forthright, Will simply takes another step toward good old fashion hackery.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Title to this post missing? I can't see it.
The fifth to last sentence should read ". . .brand unto himself."
The Post has feet of clay -- it is known for breaking Watergate, a story that has been bowdlerized into "All the King's Men" heroism.
The reality, _which they had an obligation to report_ was rather more sordid on all sides. Sometimes the leaker is as legitimate news as the leak, and there is a strong case to be made that "Deep Throat's" identity was such news.
My favorite response so far is Ezra's.
hilzoy took Will and the ombudsman to the woodshed!
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016968.php
The problem with "experts" is that they're too close to the problems they spend their lives breaking apart; you need to be able to stand back and look at this stuff with a gut feeling that A is true, and then you'll find the evidence actually supports that. (Works for global warming and invading Iraq.)
If the Post fired Will and hired Hilzoy it would be vastly improved. Or maybe the NYT can give her whosit's spot, Kristol's.
My husband and I had a politely worded disagreement about this the other day. He was ranting about it, because Will is one of my pet conservatives (I have too many of them; it's a creepy fetish that I can't seem to break free of). He wanted me to disavow George Will (I think he would weep with joy if I would stop reading David Brooks and finding him adorable). I asked why I would disavow George Will over something I wouldn't (and know I shouldn't) take Will seriously about in the first place. I think George Will talks seriously and intelligently about 2 things, and I will intellectually engage with him (in my mind) on these. They are: the history and merit of political ideas; baseball. If I'm valuing George Will on science, then it's a caveat emptor deal. Why would I privilege George Will on science? If George Will wanted to talk to me about what makes a mule sexy enough to pay over $40 for it (I'm not talking about the 40-acres-and-a- kind, guys) I would probably fall out. The Washington Post can stand behind his opinion of the peep-toe with a chunky oxford heel as the 3rd wave sexy...and it is meaningless because come hell or high water I really do subscribe (and NOT subscribe by choice, if you dig) to the caveat-iness of the emptor.
You young whippersnappers need to know that Will has been lying for longer than you have been breathing. You should have seen his dust in the Watergate days. He has never paid any professional price at all - rather he has gone from strength to strength. Likewise none of the institutions affiliated with him have ever suffered from the association. This episode will be no different.
This is a guy who confidently predicted that Admiral Stockdale was going to be "very impressive" in the 1992 vice-presidential debate. If you can keep your head high after a disaster in punditry like that, a few little quibbles about global warming won't even call for a stiff Manhattan.
I agree that Will's column was stupid, but I'm not sure that, as you say, blogs are eclipsing edit pages because you have a different form of accountability. Michelle Malkin, for example, has a very large audience for her blog, and she says stupid things all the time. And her audience buys it. Or take the example of Andrew being wrong on so many posts about the role of black folks in supporting Prop 8. I'm thinking he's doing fine.
There are a lot of great things about blogs, but I don't think they necessarily guard against stupidity.
A great story, broken by the Post, will still be a great story.
But it's entirely possible that great story will carry less weight and/or be viewed less seriously. Once a pillar of a paper's integrity is questioned--to toss a bunch o' metaphors into the mix--the taint carries over to the rest of the paper, especially if the paper stands by its clearly erroneous writer's clearly erroneous writing.
This sort of thing is insidious.
It's curious that George Will still has a job and Dan Rather does not.
It's curious that George Will still has a job and Dan Rather does not.
Maybe Dan Rather is secretly black and we didn't know?
We all know if this was a brotha he would have probably been gone.
The newspapers don't care if they are factually right, apparently.
Here is an example. The story about the octuplets has been in the news a lot lately. Most news outlets seem to be using the word "implant" as in "the embryos were implanted" into the mother's uterus. This word is incorrect. The medically correct word for the procedure is "transfer". If you look at what the doctors say, they use the word "transfer". However, the media persists in using the word "implant".
This issue is a bit of a sore spot for anyone who has gone through IVF because you transfer the embryos and then you hope and pray they implant. There is a Grand Canyon sized gulf between "transfer" and "implant". And "implantation failure" is a common reason for IVF failures. So using the correct word to describe the procedure helps clarify what actually happens and also helps to explain what might go wrong should it not work.
So someone I know wrote to the New York Times complaining of the paper's persistence in using the incorrect medical terminology and explained what the correct word was and why it mattered. The journalist wrote back saying she understood the issue, but they'd "decided to go with 'implant' because they felt the "average reader has no idea" what a 'transfer' is.
Huh? Are you kidding me? (insert jaw dropping to ground here)
Health and medical articles in general newspapers use proper medical terminology all the time. They even use long and confusing medical words that the general public probably doesn't understand without help. And it's not like "transfer" is a confusing word. It's a common word, understood by most people. The NYT's decision to use the wrong word is somewhat akin to them deciding to use the phrase "private parts cancer" because the public just couldn't be expected to understand the phrase "testicular cancer". Do they really think we're that stupid? Apparently so.
So the NYT has apparently decided the proper journalistic decision is to stick with using the wrong word to for a medical procedure. A word that is not only wrong, but can confuse issues related to the medical procedure itself. And their stated reason for doing this is that they think the public is too stupid to understand if they use the proper word. They are choosing to be wrong. On purpose.
So now we're supposed to be suprised by the Washington Post standing behind a star when he's wrong? We're supposed to be surprised that they are choosing to be wrong? I wish I could be surprised. But I'm not. Apparently being wrong on purpose and choosing to continue to be wrong when called on it is what journalists, newspapers and news organizations do these days.
MB, are you saying in a roundabout way that will shouldn't be writing about global warming? Apparently he didn't take the subject seriously enough to bother with the truth, which is pretty troubling considering that he offered his take on the facts as fact.
I think it was TNC who wrote earlier this week that opinion should be based on fact. Will's was not. It was based on something that's demonstrably wrong.
@LH
Nope. I'm saying Will is not only free but encouraged to write any old thing, that ANYONE is welcome to publish it.
The extent to which I will engage with it intellectually is up to me. I think George Will is a pretty smart guy. I long ago gave up the notion, though, that being smart (a) requires that you be smart about everything, (b) requires that I assume you're smart about everything, or (c) means much of anything at all outside pretty circumscribed conditions.
I think George Will is a smart guy who's smart about two things I'm interested in. I am open to the possibility that he's smart about other stuff that I'm interested in, but don't expect it of him. I guess I just don't think he had any cred to LOSE on this, and am genuinely perplexed about the hullabaloo. I love Sean Penn's acting; I don't take him especially seriously as a political agent - despite his desire to be such. It's not an expertise question, it's a nature of the investment issue.
"If I'm valuing George Will on science, then it's a caveat emptor deal. Why would I privilege George Will on science?"\
Because he's talking about climate change, which has POLITICAL AND POLICY IMPLOCATIONS. Because what he's trying to do is emboldening the climate change deniers in COngress. Because this could be the first shot in the bow to oppose any programs related to climate change.
Don't kid yourself. This is not about SCIENCE. This is about the politics of it.
He only has the power he's granted (guess by whom?). I don't recollect seeing his name on any of the ballots I cast in November. I don't believe him to be in any genuine way, shape or form an actual opinion leader on this policy issue. Ergo, that he is a dumbass is sort of irrelevant. He made a noise, a bunch of other people are making noises in response to his noise, and it's all sound & fury (finish the quote).
George Will's name near the words intellectual honesty ... I think I hear the universe ripping at the seams.
Ta-Nehisi is right. Blogs will take over op-ed because ther is more accountability in the blogosphere.
The Post can circle the wagons around the very well connected and at times erudite Will, but they are more than anything demonstrating how out of touch they are with their new, weaker, position in the information hierarchy.
Will is an old man. He may simply not understand what is going on. But the Post is a big enterprise that imagines it has a future. It cannot afford to misunderstand their position.
Their position is weak. Although people still rely on the newspapers for reporting, there are a lot of top quality analysts and writers in the blogosphere who directly compete with the editorial page. Will's reputation has taken a hit; so has the Post's. It is not smart to squander your reputation when you are fighting to stay relevant. Too many might decide that you are - irrelevant. When they leave it will be hard to draw them back.
I'm glad Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is on this too.