I realize some of you may be sick of my Washington Post chat fixation but I found this interesting:
Raleigh, N.C.: Good afternoon. What are the ground rules for the roundtable on “Meet the Press”? For example, if someone argues that Obama is bad because the sky is purple, are you allowed to say, no, the sky is actually blue? In a related question, how are your columns fact-checked? It just seems like commentators/pundits are held to an incredibly low standard for accuracy.
Eugene Robinson: We are allowed to state the true color of the sky. And here at The Washington Post, our columns are read by the best copy editors I’ve ever known. They save us all from embarrassment regularly.
Not this time, I guess (from TPM earlier today):
Mum’s the word for George Will and the Washington Post when it comes to explaining how misinformation on global warming got into Will’s most recent column.
Yesterday morning we called Will to ask him about the misrepresentations in his Sunday column. We also called Fred Hiatt, the editor of the paper’s editorial page, to ask about the editing process that the Post’s editorial page employs. Neither chose to answer our questions.[…]
We’re hearing that the Post’s editing process for opinion pieces is virtually non-existent. Maybe that makes sense in some cases — it certainly seems reasonable to give most columnists a freer hand than straight news reporters get. But it’s difficult to know for sure when the Post won’t talk about it. And that approach sure didn’t serve the paper well here.
Update: While Robinson mentions copy editors, not fact-checkers, he does do so in the context of a question about fact-checking.