Friday, February 20, 2009

More from Matt on George

I missed this post by Matt Yglesias earlier, one I think makes an even stronger case against George Will's intellectual dishonesty, and the Washington Post's professional malpractice.

Some of those people [at the Post] do bad work, which is too bad. And some of those people do good work. And unfortunately, that’s worse. It means that when good work appears in the Post it bolsters the reputation of the Post as an institution. And the Post, as an institution, has taken a stand that says it’s okay to claim that up is down. It’s okay to claim that day is night. It’s okay to claim that hot is cold. It’s okay to claim that a consensus existed when it didn’t. It’s okay to claim that George Will is a better source of authority on interpreting the ACRC’s scientific research than is the ACRC. Everyone who works at the Post, has, I think, a serious problem.

0 talk back: