Comments on: Check it out

By: The Poor Man Institute » Sad songs say so much

The Poor Man Institute » Sad songs say so much — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:15:11 +0000

[...] Or, for example, an equally influential reporter for My Furry Ball Sack, which employs about as many actual “reporters” as National Review. But, in either case, the point stands. That liberals should hold The Paper of Record to a higher journalistic standard than National Review (a fine publication which doesn’t have a single full-time fact checker) is an unfair double standard, and Erstwhile First Amendment Martyr Judy Miller is suffering unfairly for it! Oh! Oh! The Humanity! [...]

By: Angry Bear

Angry Bear — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:13:13 +0000

Ted—Perhaps your research explains this from Clifford May’s column :

President Roosevelt waited until after World War II to put in place a commission to investigate what mistakes led to Pearl Harbor.

See http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200404081530.asp It speaks volumes that, while May is way off because Roosevelt issued an order in 1941 establishing a commission to investigate Pearl Harbor, that error is, amazingly, only the second most incorrect “fact” in May’s sentence. AB

By: Kriston Capps

Kriston Capps — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 05:13:53 +0000

I might change your John Derbyshire link.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:36:11 +0000

(er, the question to gmt is different from the VVH Corner parody. Sorry ‘bout that.)

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:34:44 +0000

I like this one myself:

Excerpts from a cassette tape labeled “For Immediate Destruction. Do NOT [underlined four times] accidentally mail this out with the promotional materials. Kathryn-Jean, THIS MEANS YOU”, which I found in my mailbox today, along with various promotional materials from the National Review:

gmt, what are you talking about? Ordinarily that would be a hostile question, but in this case I’m just smacking my lips.

By: GMT

GMT — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:26:25 +0000

The Weekly Standard and the American Prospect employ full-time fact-checkers Doesn’t seem to have helped David Brooks, which yet again is a disaster for his pesky wannabe: George Will. No such Canadian institutions. Quadruple. Quintuple. No…wait…

By: Motoko

Motoko — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:38:08 +0000

To be honest, when it comes to some things Jonah can out-fact-check everybody.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:13:44 +0000

Bob, No, I didn’t. Although, in Blinded by the Right, David Brock says that in his whole time writing for the old Spectator, he was never fact-checked.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:58:48 +0000

I was going to comment on partisan lines, but the Standard goes against that grain. Did you check the Spectator? Emmett has a reputation to protect, you know.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:57:02 +0000

I didn’t ask about the in-house blogs, but I’d be surprised if any of them are fact-checked. Kevin Drum’s definitely isn’t; he’s said that he’s just been asked to keep on doing what he has been doing. The Corner is definitely not checked. As far as expecting less from blogs, I don’t think that you’ve been reading Buzz Machine. We’re going to revolutionize journalism. We’re the Segway of the 00’s, but for real this time.

By: digamma

digamma — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:47:10 +0000

Best Corner parody ever.

By: roy edroso

roy edroso — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:46:53 +0000

Ah, but who will fact-check the asses of the fact-checking asses? Nice legwork. But does the fact-checking policy apply to their in-house blogs? Does Washington Monthly, for example, require Kevin Drum to submit his stuff to editorial before it’s posted? People expect less from blogs. Maybe there’s a reason for that.