Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

After roe, women are no longer free.

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

T R E 4 5 O N

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

If you are still in the GOP, you are an extremist.

Bark louder, little dog.

“Squeaker” McCarthy

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

A Senator Walker would be an insult to the state and the nation.

In my day, never was longer.

“More of this”, i said to the dog.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

You are here: Home / Politics / Media / To edit or not to edit

To edit or not to edit

by | 40 Comments

This post is in: 

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.

Reader Interactions

40Comments

  1. 1.

    donovong

    If you actually BELIEVE that the sky is purple (or, as in George Will’s case, that global warming is akin to Santa Claus and/or Republican morals) then there is really no problem, right? After all, this is from the instituion that promoted the fallacy of WMD’s.

  2. 2.

    KRK

    Robinson completely dodged the fact-checking question, and even if true his response has no bearing on the Will fiasco.

    While I have no doubt that copy editors regularly save WP columnists from embarrassment due to atrocious writing, it’s not their job to fact check.

    George Will writes: The wurld is getting coldier.
    Copy editor sends back: The world is getting colder.
    Copy editor says to friends: George Will is an idiot and I hate my job.

  3. 3.

    Tonal Crow

    There you leftists go again, bashing conservatives for being conservative. Where, oh where, is the "tolerance" that you America-hating socialist-communist gay-promoting dirt-worshipping latte-drinking Volvo-driving lesbianites love so much? Drowned in a sea of Obama-juice, no doubt.

  4. 4.

    Jeff H

    Ah, but look carefully at Robinson’s quote. He says they have copy editors, but nothing about fact checking. So typos, grammatical errors, and the like are caught. Stating as fact things that aren’t true are going to go through as long as all the spelling is right and the punctuation is in place.

  5. 5.

    random asshole

    To read literally into Robinson’s quote:

    1. They’re allowed to state the true color of the sky, but they’re neither expected nor required to actually do so, or, for that matter, even acknowledge that the sky actually exists.

    2. The columns are read by the best copy editors, but not actually edited by those editors.

    Sounds about right.

  6. 6.

    Tim in SF

    I, for one, am not sick of your Washington Post chat fixation. I file it under "you read that crap so I don’t have to." I’d rather read your summation and the one or two good quotes than dredge through teh whole mess. Blah.

  8. 8.

    Funkhauser

    I agree with a random asshole. The difference is between copy editors, who revise grammar and spelling, and fact checkers, who check the accuracy of statements of fact. It’s safe to say that the Washington Post may have the best of the former, and almost none of the latter.

    For these reasons, I stopped reading the WashPost the minute I left DC.

  9. 9.

    JasonF

    Off topic, but Aerosmith has apparently told Rep. Cantor to stop using "Back in the Saddle." Republican copyright infringement for the win!

  10. 10.

    Zifnab

    Update: While Robinson mentions copy editors, not fact-checkers, he does do so in the context of a question about fact-checking.

    His fact checker editor probably missed that one.

  11. 11.

    WyldPirate

    C’mon now, Doug. What was it one of the anonymous Bush assclown sources say in Ron Suskind’s book "The Price of Loyalty" on John O’Neills stint as Treasury Secretary?

    "We create our own reality…"

    George Will is an old school Con—but he’s still a Rethug–and Rethugs are about the only group that is worse than Christians (and other religious groups that believe in dieties) about living in/creating a fantasy world instead of dealing with reality.

  13. 13.

    ThymeZoneThePlumber

    So, did you all see Jane Hamsher on David Shuster’s show just now?

    I haven’t paid that much attention over the years, but … damn.

    She NAILED Eric Cantor on the mortgage thing. I mean, just dissed his sorry ass as bad as anything I have seen on tv so far.

    Basically, said that if Cantor doesn’t understand the issue any better than his recent statement would indicate, he has no business being in a leadership position in the Congress.

    Sha-zam. The mighty power of the fact bomb.

    "Homeowners, right now, are suffering under skyrocketing property taxes. And if we put the bill for $50 billion plus on top of all the bills that families have right now, you may very well be set to encourage more foreclosures," said Cantor.

    "Wrong," said Hamsher. Dead wrong. The money won’t come from anything remotely related to property taxes.

  14. 14.

    DougJ

    @TZTP

    About how long into the show was it? Maybe C&L or TPM Tivoed it and can put it up.

    (You do realize though that no one outside the blogs and Beltway cares. ;) )

  15. 15.

    ThymeZoneThePlumber

    @DougJ:

    About how long into the show was it?

    I’d say at about the 15-20 min mark.

    (You do realize though that no one outside the blogs and Beltway cares. ;) )

    About so many things, Doug. So many things ……

    ;)

  16. 16.

    JL

    @ThymeZoneThePlumber: She also nailed the first question about winners and losers. How could Cantor be a winner and Pelosi a loser..please..
    She mentioned that if you were talking about baseball then winners and losers might be a fair comparison. She then went on to talk about Nancy’s poll average rising while the GOP was tanking. She did a great job! It should be up on the MSNBC site after 7.

  22. 22.

    big woo

    We’re hearing that the Post’s editing process for opinion pieces is virtually non-existent.

    I’m sure it’s nothing personal, just business. No doubt WaPo is positioning itself for a piece of the coming market expansion in the same "fly-over" resentment and Southern bitterness that Fox News has been exploiting profitably for years.

  23. 23.

    AhabTRuler

    I file it under "you read that crap so I don’t have to."

    I agree. WaPo chat stuff definitely needs to get tagged with that.

  24. 24.

    AhabTRuler

    No doubt WaPo is positioning itself for a piece of the coming market expansion in the same "fly-over" resentment and Southern bitterness that Fox News has been exploiting profitably for years.

    Well, Washington does need a conservative daily.

  25. 25.

    Tonal Crow

    Washington *does* need a conservative daily, just not a fact-hating right-wing wacko daily.

    Maybe we can resurrect Burke. Or Hamilton. ‘Course, today’s "conservatives" would deride them as "leftists".

  26. 26.

    Reverend Dennis

    The WaPo editorial page is workin’ hard to fill the void left by the demise of the print version of "Weekly World News." Watch for the hard-hitting Krauthammer exposé on Obama’s secret love child and David Broder’s stomach-turning diary of his own alien abduction.

  27. 27.

    Litlebritdifrnt

    I propose a lottery, based upon Mika’s dad’s proposal this morning. You print out tickets for all of the people who are a) unemployed or b) in foreclosure right now. Each absolutely insanely rich person in this country (you know those who have made billions of the stock exchange the last several years) pick a ticket, if they pick a homeowner with a crap mortgage they get to buy the mortgage, lower the interest rate and work with the homeowner to the point that they can make the payments (I do not care if it is 1%). If they get an unemployed person they get to employ them or pay their unemployment benenfits until they get a job. I think this will work, however I think the best idea would be for all the rich people in the country (ie those who made silly money on all those crap mortgage loans) simply stepped in, bought up all the mortgages, renegotiated the rates and then sat there happily collecting interest on their investments.

  29. 29.

    Mnemosyne

    As a former copy editor, I would like to point out that a copy editor and a fact checker are NOT the same thing.

    A copy editor would probably catch and fix the error if your column said the sky was yellow instead of blue, but it’s not the copy editor’s job to check quotes or other facts.

  30. 30.

    Jon H

    With people like Will, Kristol, and Brooks, they *can’t* fact-check the columns. Those columnists don’t merely make incidental factual errors, the errors are the skeleton of the entire column. Take away the error and you’d lose the column.

    If these writers were fact-checked, the paper would repeatedly have to scramble at the last minute to find something to fill the gap caused by a killed column.

  31. 31.

    gbear

    @Martin:

    Maybe not the ‘no shit’ headline of the day, but maybe the ‘no surprise’ headline. No star power either. Or wetsuits. It was on the top-10 list of the Mpls StarTrib this afternoon.

    Ohio man accused of holding woman captive in cuffs and diaper, reading Bible to her

  35. 35.

    J. Michael Neal

    Robinson completely dodged the fact-checking question, and even if true his response has no bearing on the Will fiasco.

    Actually, it’s such an obvious dodge that I suspect that it was a subtle barb. Gene Robinson has never struck me as an idiot. He knew exactly what he was saying.

  37. 37.

    Steeplejack

    DougJ @ top:

    I realize some of you may be sick of my Washington Post chat fixation [. . .]

    Dude, get over this self-inflicted bashfulness! You’re performing a service, like "I attend–and ask the hard, obnoxious questions–so you don’t have to." Keep on keepin’ on. I love your reports on the live chats. I wonder how you have the intestinal fortitude to keep doing them, but, hey, I’m glad you’re doing them. And those who don’t like the posts can skip over to the cat pr0n and Stillers idolatry.

  39. 39.

    comrade scott's agenda of rage

    As a fellow avid WaPo chat follower, I’m glad to see it hitting the "front page" here.

    And lest anyone forget, Posties are Posties First meaning "thou shalt never say ill of another Postie, or our processes, management, business style, etc etc."

    It’s one reason they just don’t get it. Never will. The blinders every one of them wears is another reason why their physical circulation dwindles and lifetime readers like me will never, ever pay them for content again.

    Unless they completely change how they think. Right.

  40. 40.

    MH

    I was going to remark on the copy editor vs. fact-checker thing but I see I’ve been long since beaten to it.

Comments are closed.