[H]ere's what happened when we tried to talk about all this yesterday morning with Will and [editorial page editor Fred] Hiatt:If the target of a news story stonewalled a Post reporter to this extent, how much would Post editors be flipping out? You can't help but wonder.
Will's assistant told us that Will might get back to us later in the day to talk about the column. And Hiatt said he was too busy to talk about it just then, but that he'd try to respond to emailed questions. So we emailed him yesterday's post, with several questions about the editing process, then followed up with another email late yesterday afternoon.
But still nothing from either of them, over twenty-four hours after the first contact was made. Nor has the online version of Will's column been updated, even to reflect the fact that the ACRC has utterly disavowed the claim Will attributes to it.
Cross-posted from ArticleXI.com
4 comments:
Edit George Will's columns? He is nationally syndicated. You have got to be kidding.
Be honest. You are not talking about editing. You are talking about censoring. If you don't agree with Will's assertions, what is wrong with challenging those assertions and showing that what he said is not credible? Are you that afraid you cannot?
Most Conservatives consider Global Warming blatant nonsense, but we don't demand the right to censor what we consider nonsense just because it is nonsense. It has something to do with free speech.
Do you consider free speech a threat too? I hope not, but I guess I for sure if you start editing my comments.
The 1st Amendment doesn't protect lies.
And the lie is...
This isn't about whether or not you believe in global warming. The column was full of easily refuted factual errors. It's not that the opinion is wrong (he's entitled to it), it's that the facts are wrong.
Post a Comment