Follow BeltwayBlips on Twitter
So Much Nicer to Be George Will Before the Internet
This Modern World —
... States because it was the wrong story. So she looked it up and called me back, and said, “Yeah, you’re right, we found it there; okay, we’ll run your letter.” An hour later she called again and said, “Gee, I’m sorry, but we can’t run the letter.” I said, “What’s the problem?” She said, “Well the editor mentioned it to Will and he’s having a tantrum; they decided they can’t run it.” Well, okay. I’ve stuck the Understanding Power footnotes, with references and excerpts, over at my site .
Where there's a Will, there no way
Political Animal —
... , "If by 'no reigns,' Will means that bloggers can publish outright falsehoods without consequence, then he's correct. But he might not be the best person to make this point." And speaking of writers and "reigns," Jonathan Schwarz passes along a great anecdote from Noam Chomsky that seems especially relevant given the events of the last few days. [A] few years ago George Will wrote a column in Newsweek called "Mideast Truth and Falsehood," about how peace activists are lying about the Middle East, everything they say is a lie. And in the article, there was one statement that ...
Still waiting
Political Animal —
... be a couple of lines at the end of Will's column today, noting his error. There wasn't. The paper hasn't made any acknowledgement of the problem since the column was published. So, what's the hold up? There are a few possibilities: 1) the Post doesn't consider Will's factual errors to be factual errors; 2) the Post considers factual errors made in opinion columns inconsequential; or 3) the Post knows Will's wrong and wants to run a correction, but doesn't want to endure a " tantrum " from the columnist. Any other possibilities here?— ...
