Comments on: An Open Letter to Andrew Alexander, Ombudsman at the Washington Post http://blog.amhill.net/2009/02/27/an-open-letter-to-andrew-alexander-ombudsman-at-the-washington-post/ Pants optional. Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:24:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Vernon http://blog.amhill.net/2009/02/27/an-open-letter-to-andrew-alexander-ombudsman-at-the-washington-post/comment-page-1/#comment-3308 Vernon Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:04:12 +0000 http://blog.amhill.net/?p=701#comment-3308 I'm still doubled over from laughter that you read George Will. I’m still doubled over from laughter that you read George Will.

]]> By: Aaron http://blog.amhill.net/2009/02/27/an-open-letter-to-andrew-alexander-ombudsman-at-the-washington-post/comment-page-1/#comment-3296 Aaron Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:46:20 +0000 http://blog.amhill.net/?p=701#comment-3296 Check out the article over on Carl Zimmer's blog, "The Loom". Apparently, George Will has his OWN fact-checkers, and the WaPo has their own as well. With regard to Will's original article, the fact-checkers all consulted with a BLOG regarding Will's reference, but did not consult the original research labs whose data was being cited. The research lab has since posted a notice on their website saying something to the effect of "We don't know where Will is getting that data from, but it's not us." If Will was stating his opinon, it'd be one thing, but he's stating something as a FACT based on someone's research -- and he's either being deceitful intentionally or he's just plain ignorant of the science behind it. Either way -- he, or the WaPo at least, should publish a retraction, but I doubt he will. Check out the article over on Carl Zimmer’s blog, “The Loom”.

Apparently, George Will has his OWN fact-checkers, and the WaPo has their own as well.

With regard to Will’s original article, the fact-checkers all consulted with a BLOG regarding Will’s reference, but did not consult the original research labs whose data was being cited. The research lab has since posted a notice on their website saying something to the effect of “We don’t know where Will is getting that data from, but it’s not us.”

If Will was stating his opinon, it’d be one thing, but he’s stating something as a FACT based on someone’s research — and he’s either being deceitful intentionally or he’s just plain ignorant of the science behind it. Either way — he, or the WaPo at least, should publish a retraction, but I doubt he will.

]]> By: Mike http://blog.amhill.net/2009/02/27/an-open-letter-to-andrew-alexander-ombudsman-at-the-washington-post/comment-page-1/#comment-3295 Mike Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:08:08 +0000 http://blog.amhill.net/?p=701#comment-3295 I applaud the sentiment, but do newspapers use fact-checkers for columns? They generally don't for news stories. I applaud the sentiment, but do newspapers use fact-checkers for columns? They generally don’t for news stories.

]]> By: Aaron http://blog.amhill.net/2009/02/27/an-open-letter-to-andrew-alexander-ombudsman-at-the-washington-post/comment-page-1/#comment-3294 Aaron Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:13:42 +0000 http://blog.amhill.net/?p=701#comment-3294 Thanks for the info UN -- Just sent the letter in. Their policy requires that the letter be exclusively sent to the WaPo -- so the fact that it's an open letter may disqualify it. But at the very least, it's one more set of eyes contributing to this cause. Thanks for the info UN — Just sent the letter in. Their policy requires that the letter be exclusively sent to the WaPo — so the fact that it’s an open letter may disqualify it.

But at the very least, it’s one more set of eyes contributing to this cause.

]]> By: unreliable narrator http://blog.amhill.net/2009/02/27/an-open-letter-to-andrew-alexander-ombudsman-at-the-washington-post/comment-page-1/#comment-3293 unreliable narrator Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:19:39 +0000 http://blog.amhill.net/?p=701#comment-3293 And: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm And: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

]]>