LAYERS OF FACT-CHECKERS AND EDITORS.
LAYERS OF EDITORS AND FACT-CHECKERS: At KTVU. And, apparently, the NTSB. . . .
WOULD SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO THE ASSOCIATED PRESS THAT Spitfires aren’t “Fighter Jets?”
UPDATE: Reader Michael Blum emails:
Amusingly, WaPo has corrected their headline and the article removing the mentions of “fighter jets”.
Of course, they also don’t bother mentioning any corrections to the article itself anywhere.
Would hate to have people think that journalists and “layers of fact-checkers and editors” don’t know what they’re writing about.
The frenzy began Monday morning when the Washington Post reported that “the federal government wants to create super Wi-Fi networks across the nation, so powerful and broad in reach that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the Internet without paying a cellphone bill every month.” Best of all, network access would be free. “If all goes as planned, free access to the Web would be available in just about every metropolitan area and in many rural areas,” the Post reported. The clear implication: this was a bold—and entirely brand-new—plan.
Unfortunately, the piece was basically nonsense. What had really happened was in fact unbelievably boring: the Post simply observed an incremental development in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) at the Federal Communications Commission over the issue of incentive auctions that might free up some additional unlicensed spectrum for so-called “White Space Devices” (read our explainer) operating in and around the current over-the-air TV bands. (I told you it was boring; in addition, the basic debate over White Space Devices was actually settled in 2008.)
From this thin material, which basically consisted of Internet service providers and tech companies sniping at each other in long legal documents, with no decisions being made by anyone and no new proposals of anything, the Post then reported—on the front page, above the fold of the country’s eighth-most highly circulated newspaper—that the FCC plan could lead to free Internet for most US residents.
So much for all those layers of editors and fact-checkers.
UPDATE: Reader Drew Kelley writes: “Another demonstration that the media-class is basically composed of moochers, who want everything on somebody else’s dime.”
MISTAKEN NATION: Modern Journalism And the Proliferation of Errors. Well, those layers of editors and fact-checkers were never that great. But now they’ve mostly been laid off.
Trip Gabriel of the New York Times recalls a threefer from a single campaign trail dispatch last year. His story misspelled Tammy Faye Bakker’s last name (“Baker”), misspelled Hillary Clinton’s first name (“Hilary”) and reported the wrong call letters for a TV station. “I should have done better,” says Gabriel, “especially since I later wrote a piece about [Rep. Michele] Bachmann’s penchant for playing fast and loose with facts.”
Ya think? But, you know, the real reason for declining trust in journalism isn’t honest error — it’s dishonest reporting.
JOURNALISM: AP story about Petraeus scandal mistakenly refers to “Florida socialist” Jill Kelley. Well, to be fair, she did visit the White House three times this year, so that may have confused all those layers of editors and fact-checkers. . . .
LAYERS OF EDITORS AND FACT-CHECKERS: NBC Reports On Death of Astronaut Neil Young.
UPDATE: A pic.
LAYERS OF EDITORS AND FACT-CHECKERS: How This Guy Lied His Way Into MSNBC, ABC News, The New York Times and More.
So the blatant, racially charged distortion of George Zimmerman’s 911 call started on NBC 6 Miami on March 19, appearing in two articles by three different writers. It was repeated on March 20 in an article attributed to one of the three writers. The articles have been updated, but the quotes remain. The mis-quote aired on the Today Show on March 22 during a live segment with reporter Lilia Luciano, and again on March 27 with reporter Ron Allen.
For NBC and MSNBC to characterize the error as a single episode caused by a producer’s time constraints in getting a video clip ready for live morning television, which just unfortunately happened to be missed by layers of editorial control, is not very convincing.
Nope. So much for all those layers of editors and fact-checkers. Kinda looks. . . reckless.
LAYERS OF editors and fact-checkers.
LAYERS OF EDITORS AND FACT-CHECKERS: Greg Packer Snookers the L.A. Times in a Big Way.
NANOTECHNOLOGY UPDATE: California High School Student Devises Possible Cancer Cure. Hurray for smart teens. On the other hand, CBS’s layers of editors and fact-checkers need some copyediting help:
Angela’s idea was to mix cancer medicine in a polymer that would attach to nanoparticles — nanoparticles that would then attach to cancer cells and show up on an MRI. so doctors could see exactly where the tumors are. Then she thought [t]hat if you aimed an infrared light at the tumors to melt the polymer and release the medicine, thus killing the cancer cells while leaving healthy cells completely unharmed.
Well, the point’s fairly clear, but the writing is atrocious.
“FORMER PRESIDENT AL GORE:” Layers of fact-checkers and editors at Reuters.
SARAH PALIN RELEASES A statement on the Tucson Shootings.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Lame complaints about the term “blood libel.”
Typically, but not exclusively, blood libels have been accusations against Jews. But blood libels have also been made historically against Christians — including Catholics and the Knights Templar — witches and pagans, and, more modernly, Satanists.
Liberals need something to mumble about, so goshdarnitow sometime between yesterday and today the term came to apply only to the Jews. They’d like you to believe this is “another” example of Palin’s ignorance, even though, as I said, by their own definition her use of the term is appropriate. As with their response to the Arizona shooting, facts-be-damned they’ve got a story and they’re sticking to it. . . .
This is willful ignorance so liberal commentators can feel good about themselves. Their slander over the weekend didn’t stick, so now it’s on to a new one. Notice, they can’t claim not to have made the false accusation that the Tea Party caused the Arizona shooting. So instead of defending it, which they can’t, they’ll just quibble about the words Palin used.
That seems to be how it works. And here are a bunch of examples of “blood libel” used in various contexts, by people as diverse as Andrew Sullivan and Ann Coulter, as well as Alex Beam, Michael Barone, Andrew Cohen of CBS, and Les Payne. Nobody cared, because Sarah Palin wasn’t involved. Heck, I used the term myself in my WSJ column. I got a grouchy email or two, but nobody else — even among the lefties who criticized it — seemed to care about the use of the term. This is the silliest hissyfit yet, and is itself evidence that there’s no substantive response.
MORE: No, the headline on my piece — “The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel” — didn’t come from me. It was provided, as headlines usually are, by the WSJ. But I did use the term in the piece. My headline was “Have You No Decency?” Because what’s going on here — however much they’re trying to change the subject — is precisely the kind of McCarthyism the media left purports to disdain.
STILL MORE: Reader David Ringelman emails that Sarah Palin must have been reading Frank Rich, who wrote in 2006:
The moment Mr. Foley’s e-mails became known, we saw that brand of fearmongering and bigotry at full tilt: Bush administration allies exploited the former Congressman’s predatory history to spread the grotesque canard that homosexuality is a direct path to pedophilia. It’s the kind of blood libel that in another era was spread about Jews.
And yet, somehow, it slipped right by all those layers of culturally sensitive editors and fact-checkers at the New York Times. That’s because, once again, a made-up double-standard has been invented for a particular purpose. Really, is this all they’ve got? Yes.
FINALLY: Alan Dershowitz says “blood libel” is a perfectly acceptable metaphor, and many others weigh in.
LAYERS OF EDITORS AND FACT-CHECKERS: New York Times gets Jules Verne wrong:
Perhaps the most famous work in the genre is Jules Verne’s “From the Earth to the Moon,” which was published in Paris in 1865, and which accurately predicted not only that people from the United States would be the first to set foot on the Moon but also, among other details, that the craft carrying them would be launched from Florida, splash down in the Pacific and be rescued by the United States Navy. NASA’s Apollo program “helped make Verne popular again,” Mr. Brunner writes.
Actually, Verne’s explorers merely flew around the moon; they didn’t land.
IT’S THOSE “LAYERS OF FACT-CHECKERS AND EDITORS:” Washington Post confuses Barack Obama with Malcolm X.
LAYERS OF EDITORS AND FACT-CHECKERS FAIL AGAIN: Fake story meant to ensnare bloggers catches NYT instead.
The basic idea was this: A bunch of law bloggers would try to punk the political bloggers, whose reputation is to grab any old rumor and run with it. Fact checking hasn’t always been the strong suit of this community.
But the political bloggers, to their collective credit, didn’t bite, despite wide dissemination of the story. Not on the right or the left. Instead it was the vaunted New York Times that ran with the story without bothering to check its facts. The Times, of course, had no sense of humor about it when the angry phone call came to me a couple of hours later.
Heh. Well, anybody can be fooled, but the Big Media folks sure pull a lot of attitude.
GLENN GREENWALD: Krugman, Gruber, and non-disclosure issues. “The issue is the non-disclosure, and — most serious of all — the misleading attempts by the White House and others to depict him as being ‘objective’ and independent rather than disclosing that he was being paid a significant amount of money by the very party whose interests his advocacy was advancing (which happens to be one of the misleading schemes Sunstein explicitly advocated in his 2008 paper). . . . That’s the only issue here: for many people, there’s a big difference between hearing from a truly independent authority about Obama’s plan and hearing from someone being paid many hundreds of thousands of dollars by the administration.” Those “others” would include the media organizations whose high ethical standards and layers of editors and fact-checkers are supposed to protect readers . . . .
PRESS STUPIDITY ABOUT GUNS CONTINUES: Or maybe it’s just dishonesty:
The media is wasting very little time informing us that the weapon used by Major Nidal Malik Hasan in his rampage at Fort Hood was a “cop killer.”
Ft. Hood terrorist used a cop killer FN-Five Seven tactical pistol—20 round clip — Examiner
‘Cop Killer” Gun though to Be Used in Ft. Hood Shooting, Offiicals Said — ABC News
Fort Hood shootings: gunman used ‘cop killer’ weapon in massacre at US Army base — UK Telegraph
Ironically, there is no known record of that weapon even being used to kill a police officer in the United States, and there is a distinct possibility that Sgt. Kimberly Munley, wounded while engaging Hasan, may have been the first American law enforcement officer ever shot with a Five-seveN.
How did the Five-seveN get it’s “cop killer” reputation, then?
It was created in a Brady Campaign press release in February of 2005.
Funny how often things work that way. Where are the “layers of editors and fact-checkers” when you need them?
UPDATE: Several readers write, and Wikipedia reports, that the FN is used by Secret Service protective details. Can we say “weapon of choice for President Obama’s bodyguards” then?
ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader who says he’s a special agent with the Secret Service says that they don’t use the five-seven. What? Could Wikipedia be wrong?
IT’S THOSE LAYERS OF EDITORS AND FACT-CHECKERS AGAIN: CNBC, Reuters fall for climate hoax.
USA TODAY’S fact-checking of Obama’s town-hall assertions is discussed by Ed Morrissey. And here’s more fact-checking from Heritage. I love this bit from Ed on the generally-credulous media treatments: “The media had a field day with this yesterday, using Isakson as a bat with which beat conservative critics, but it never occurred to the layers of fact-checkers and editors that a Senator would have had nothing to do with a clause in a House bill. In fact, Isakson does support making end-of-life planning available, but doesn’t support the mandate for it that exists in Section 1233 of the House bill.” Senate, House, whatever. If the distinction were important, it would have been in the talking points.
KATIE COURIC VS. Alessandra Stanley. Let down again by those layers of editors and fact-checkers. . . .
LAYERS OF EDITORS AND FACT-CHECKERS SLIP UP: Pa. newspaper ad calls for Obama assassination. “Elchert tells The Associated Press that the newspaper’s advertising staff didn’t make the historical connection.”
It could have been worse. It could have said “Snipers Wanted.”
UPDATE: Reader Robert Crawford writes:
What does it say about the effectiveness of our educational institutions that no one connected that list of presidents to assassination? I can forgive not recognizing McKinley and Garfield as being murdered, but Lincoln and Kennedy?! Wouldn’t those two names make you wonder?
Nothing good. Sigh, indeed.
AT THE L.A. TIMES, those layers of fact-checkers and editors.
THE NEW YORK TIMES falls for a parody site. It’s all those layers of editors and fact-checkers . . . .
THOSE MANY LAYERS OF EDITORS AND FACT-CHECKERS think that Meryl Yourish and Neo-neocon are the same blogger. Hope Meryl’s correction comes faster than mine!
Plus, unable to distinguish “principle” from “principal.” Yeah, Carlos, they need your money — but is this a good investment?
UNEMPLOYMENT: Hitting men harder than women. More from Daniel Drezner, who notes a major error by Linda Hirshman that slipped past those layers of editors and fact-checkers. (Thanks to reader John Chilton, who adds: “What was that about standalone bloggers?” Maybe we’re not obsolete yet!)
UPDATE: Hirshman responds in the comments, and Drezner responds to her response. And there’s more discussion over at Megan McArdle’s.
DON SURBER fact-checks the L.A. Times. Apparently those vaunted layers of editors and fact-checkers didn’t do much editing or fact-checking. Again. I think it’s mostly the editors, though, because the article doesn’t clearly distinguish between McCain supporters in 2000 and today. Plenty of people who supported him then don’t support him now, and vice versa.
LAYERS OF FACT-CHECKERS AND EDITORS at work in Wisconsin.
THE A.P. AND CHELSEA CLINTON, engaging in the same old Kyoto revisionism:
Clinton told about 250 people at N.C. State that her mother, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, would work to repair the nation’s reputation abroad.
“I think the world will breathe a sigh of relief when this president is gone,” Clinton said, criticizing Bush for pulling out of various accordings, including the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.
In fact, this isn’t true:
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95â€“0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”. On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
THOSE LAYERS OF FACT-CHECKERS AND EDITORS AT WORK: “Maxim magazine has apologized for publishing a negative review of the Black Crowes’ new album by a writer who hadn’t listened to the whole CD. . . . A spokeswoman for the magazine contacted by The Associated Press declined to say whether the writer would face disciplinary action.” (Via Daring Fireball).
HOWARD KURTZ ON CNN AND THE PLANTS: Nice that he’s covering it. But Kurtz reports it in a way that gives a false impression about yours truly:
Conservative bloggers, some of whom deride CNN as the “Clinton News Network,” ripped the network yesterday. At Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds wrote: “Once again, CNN demonstrates an inexplicable failure to background-check pro-Hillary questioners.” Scott Johnson of PowerLine wrote that “CNN has shown itself unable or unwilling to act as an honest broker.” James Joyner, at Outside the Beltway, said: “If lone bloggers can vet these people in less than half an hour, surely CNN’s crack journalistic team should have been able to do so between the time they selected the pool of questions and the airing of the debate?”
I’ve never called CNN the “Clinton News Network.” (I’m not even a “conservative blogger” except in the sense that I’ve supported the war, but nowadays that’s all “conservative” means to most people). And there’s a bigger problem.
CNN’s problem isn’t just bias — it’s a failure of professionalism. Frankly, if bloggers ran some sort of event and were infiltrated in this fashion, the usual media-ethics suspects would be tugging their beards about blogger irresponsibility and praising the superior layers of editors and fact-checkers at Big Media outfits like . . . CNN.
But we learn that CNN did use Google:
He said CNN never spoke to Kerr and had Google, which owns YouTube, bring the retired general and about a dozen other questioners to the debate because their videos were likely to be used, although no final decision had been made.
Using Google for plane tickets is okay. But next time, try using them for . . . Googling. As a commenter at Kurtz’s observes: “What should be noted about this issue is that CNN probably has a whole army of interns and low-level producers who could vet the possible questioners. They ‘could spend hours Googling everybody’, while the top level hacks concentrated on choosing the ‘best’ questions.”
Meanwhile, I’ll just repeat what I said earlier: If Fox hosted a Democratic debate and many of the most pointed questions turned out to come from Republican activists, but Fox didn’t disclose that, do you think it would pass unremarked?
UPDATE: Roger Simon comments: The Presidential Debates are a National Joke.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Good grief.
MORE: Another line from Kurtz’s comments:
So let me get this straight… in the Democrat YouTube debates, the “undecided questioners” are Democratic activists and in the Republican YouTube debates, the “undecided questioners” are Democratic activists.
Well, at least they’re consistent.
Heh. Indeed. And a couple of readers note that the media is sometimes more fastidious about who’s asking the questions.
STILL MORE: “Because of the irony.”
THOSE LAYERS OF EDITORS AND FACT-CHECKERS fail again: “A former consultant to ABC’s investigative unit admitted yesterday that he put his name on a purported interview with Barack Obama that he never conducted.”
And there’s more here: “The French Defense Ministry on Friday debunked the credentials of a former ABC News consultant who claimed to have worked as an adviser to the ministry, saying the man was just an intern for five months.”
MICKEY KAUS MATH-CHECKS THE NEW YORK TIMES: Shockingly, when 2700 dealers sell a car at about half the rate of 440 dealers, the 2700 dealers still sell more cars! Go figure!
No, really — go do the figures next time. Because apparently those layers of editors and fact-checkers don’t do math either.
POTATOE: Heh. It’s all those layers of editors and fact-checkers who make it really special.
WE’RE STARTING TO SEE SOME MEDIA PUSHBACK on the Jamil Hussein story and on criticisms of media reporting from Iraq in general — Howard Kurtz has a roundup. But I think the media’s self-justification misses the point. Just because things are bad in Iraq doesn’t justify false reports using phony sources, something that the AP’s defenders seem to be suggesting. “Fake but accurate” isn’t a standard to be raising, is it? The fact is that we’ve seen a massive institutional failure on the part of the media.
Here’s what I said nearly three years ago that still seems about right:
HERE’S A LETTER TO THE EDITOR from a recently returned Iraq vet. Like many other such letters, it says that thngs are much better there than media reports suggest.
I tend to believe that — things are better almost everywhere (except Cuba) than media reports suggest., But as I’ve said before, the biggest problem with the Iraq reporting isn’t that it’s too negative, though it is, it’s that it doesn’t tell us what we need to know. The CERP issue, for example, was probably the most important single thing going on last summer/fall but it got very little attention from the media. Likewise, the big media were slow to follow up on Zeyad’s war-crime scoop. And I ran an email regarding problems at the CPA that haven’t been addressed by big media much, but that are quite important if they’re as bad as my reader suggests.
Despite last week’s hysteria, which made factional fighting — ugly but limited — out to be a massive popular uprising, it’s clear that the real issues in Iraq are political, not military. Is our government doing a good job? It’s hard to tell. And the tendency, knowing that the media are overplaying some negatives, is to apply Kentucky windage and assume that things in general are better than they say. This may be true, but it may also be true (as the above examples suggest, and as I’ve noted before on multiple occasions) that there’s not just good news, but bad news, going unreported.
That’s especially unfortunate, because good reporting doesn’t just inform ordinary folks like us. It’s also a check on reports that flow up within the chain of command, making sure that real problems get noticed and not papered over. I’m afraid that the White House, understandably tired of the unrelenting negativity that has given us the Brutal Afghan Winter of 2002, the Invasion-Killing Sandstorm of 2003, and the Mass Popular Uprising of 2004, may have started tuning out negative reports.
I think that’s bad, but given that there are good reasons (like, you know, open admissions) to suspect an agenda in media reporting on Iraq, it was an understandable factor. Journalists like to assume a quasi-official status with all their “fourth estate” talk, but they haven’t done a very good job of living up to the responsibilities that implies. “Fake but accurate” claims won’t help them.
UPDATE: Reader C.J. Burch emails: “I think at this point the question is, is the media, consciously or no, designing its coverage to make a bad situation appear worse? I also think that’s a question the media, all of it, is desperately trying to avoid. Because they know the answer.”
And Ron Wright emails: “OK life is difficult for everyone in Iraq. However the bottom line is folks need to get the facts straight. Either we have charred bodies and six burned mosques or we don’t. ”
Jamil Hussein says we do. But the AP can’t seem to produce him. So I’m guessing the answer is “we don’t.” Does that mean things are going well for the war? Nope. It just means that they’re going badly at the AP. As Burch suggests, that’s a distinction the AP and its defenders want us to ignore.
ANOTHER UPDATE: More on Jamil Hussein here.
MORE: It’s bad to push back at bloggers by misquoting them.
STILL MORE: Heh: It’s those layers of editors and fact-checkers again! “Our co-blogger Major Leggett sends this story about his unit, from the LA Times. He’s quoted in the article, which you wouldn’t know from the article itself — since he is identified as ‘Maj. Joel Garrett.’”
CHINESE ASTRONAUTS WITH A JAPANESE FLAG: CBS News’ layers of professional editors and fact-checkers seem to have dropped the ball.
UPDATE: John Kreiser of CBS emails: “Thanks for pointing out that we had the wrong flag on the story about China planning its moon mission. We goofed; we’ve fixed it.”
That’s the way to do things.
JUST BACK FROM IRAQ, Bill Roggio responds to a Washington Post article by Jonathan Finer and Doug Struck. Excerpt:
There are three problems with this article which require a response: the use of incorrect facts which could have been easily checked; the portrayal of my embed as an information operation; and equating U.S. military information operations with al-Qaeda propaganda efforts.
Read the whole thing. I hope the Post will run a response and correct the errors.
Bill Quick, meanwhile, says the Post reporters are afraid of competition.
ANOTHER UPDATE: The Post is accused of engaging in a FUD campaign. “This is fascinating stuff because the production of FUD is a sign of an organization whose product is facing a competitive threat that it can’t beat head to head.”
Meanwhile, another freelancer who covered Iraq on his own initiative, J.D. Johannes, weighs in, too.
And Mark Tapscott writes that this will be a test for the Post in terms of handling major errors regarding the blogosphere. He also wonders how the mistakes that Roggio outlines made it past all those layers of editors and fact-checkers we hear about.
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: The Belmont Club has more thoughts.
And Ed Morrissey writes: “I have to express some disappointment with the Post in this instance.”
MORE: Dymphna has further thoughts, though I don’t endorse her John-Lennon-inspired vision.
As Ed Morrissey notes, in general the WP has been much fairer than most American outlets. I’m a bit surprised by this, and I hope they’ll make it right.