Matthew Yglesias » Tom Toles Hits George Will

Apr 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

Tom Toles Hits George Will

Internal Washington Post pushback against George Will continues:

It’s very good to see Post staff standing up to Will’s nonsense like this. But ultimately this is an issue for Fred Hiatt and Hiatt’s bosses at the top levels of the company. The newspaper shouldn’t be printing stuff that’s not true, refusing to correct it, and then printing other stuff criticizing the author of the un-true stuff. It shouldn’t be printing the untrue stuff in the first place, and if an error is pointed out it should be corrected. If Will refuses to acknowledge that he’s misleading people, the paper should get rid of him.

Comments
40

Filed under: George Will, Media,

40 Responses to “Tom Toles Hits George Will”

El Cid Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
But ultimately this is an issue for Fred Hiatt and Hiatt’s bosses at the top levels of the company.

Fat chance. They hired Fred Hiatt, and keep him there, and he’s as dumb and deceitful as any hawk moron could be, and so’s his junior Jackson Diehl.
David Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Did they publish that one? I don’t remember seeing it in the paper version, but then again I usually concentrate more on my paper copy of the FT.
anonymous Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Whatever. At least we’re hearing both sides of the story .
Martin B Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
George Will is a proven liar. In his recent newsweek column about baseball trivia he posts a question about Triple Plays in a way that makes it seem like it’s happened in the past and which has actually never happened.

He is a damn dirty liar…and he is a damn dirty liar about the worst thing you can lie about…baseball.
Jon Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Don’t hold your breath waiting for Fred Hiatt to show some intellectual integrity.
Ted Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Whatever Hiatt does, the pushback matters. It sends a signal about standards of intellectual integrity.

The signal is: no, it’s not okay to cherry-pick data in a deliberate effort to misrepresent the larger context. It’s not okay in scholarship, and it’s not okay in the pages of the Post either.

People who do this sort of thing deserve to be mocked; and over time, mockery can be a pretty effective weapon.
Steve Sailer Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
So, Matt, when are you going to develop an obsession with correcting the Post’s bad work on non-politically correct topics?
JohnH Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Look, as an environmentalism, I was delighted to see the criticism of Will’s misstatements. It also helped call attention to his lack of credibility and dishonesty. But I think this is getting way out of hand.

When all the bloggers can do is keep pointing to this as the crime of the century, it distorts everything. It makes it sound as if it’s not his usual method, but an exception that just happens for reasons beyond me to have such criminal status that it alone would get him fired. In this way, it gives his columns more, not less credibility.

It also makes it seem as if he’s different from the inanity and dishonesty of much of the right. Finally, it makes it seem as if the discourse in the media on climate change is reasonable. Is it beneath Matt and others to ask, say, why the Times magazine’s article on a great physicist could do nothing other than marvel at him as a climate “contrarian”?

In sum, this is not just getting out of hand. It is also letting a lot of culprits, Will included, get off scot free. I know bloggers like to carry on and be right every so often, as well as to post a lot, but come on already!
tomtom Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
This controversy shows how much the internet has changed things.

Ten years ago if a columnist bent the truth it would likely disappear without a trace. Possibly another columnist at a rival paper might mention it, but that would be it.

Will stonewalled, figuring it would go away… And, it hasn’t. The times they are a’changing. My guess is that columnists younger and less connected than Will are watching this, because Will’s reputation has taken a real hit.

My other comment, from reading these threads, is that the global warming debate has taken on religious overtones.

The actual science is beyond virtually all of us, so all we have to go on is that “most scientists agree”, which is reasonably strong because most scientists really do agree, and have for a while now. Still, while there is a chance it is all a big mistake, most scientific theories that make it this far turn out to be true at least in the main. In the face of this small but non-negligible ambiguity I can only be amazed by the certainty of many commenters on both sides.

Is it really so hard to admit we don’t know but have to make some important decisions anyway?
politicalfootball Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I’m curious about the provenance of the “Toles” cartoon – it’s certainly not something he did for publication, and I suspect it’s not something he did at all. (Toles has an unsophisticated drawing technique, but it’s not that unsophisticated.)

JohnH, to answer your question, in a world of crappy media, I think you have to pick your shots. Will’s offense here was particularly egregious, and if we can make it unpleasant for Hiatt when he tells people Will is entitled to his own facts, one can hope Hiatt will generalize that lesson, and that others will be warned off of the most egregious offenses.
beowulf888 Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Matt wrote: “If Will refuses to acknowledge that he’s misleading people, the paper should get rid of him.”

Well, as obnoxious as I find Will, I suspect that he’s sincere in his beliefs. After having lived through eight years of the Right attempting to silence the Left, I must admit that at the visceral level, I’d love to give them the same treatement. But silencing someone for their opinions makes us just as evil as them.

Perhaps it would be wise to take deep breath, Matt, and moderate your prose a bit. I’ve heard that the 1st Amendment protects free speech — even the speech of crackpots.
politicalfootball Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Here’s the link to what’s identified as the Tom Toles “sketch”. So it’s clearly legit, and by Toles. I wonder if it ran in the newspaper.
politicalfootball Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
And just in case somebody besides me cares, the Toles sketch is a web only feature. I guess he’s just got too many jokes to get them all in the newspaper.
roger Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Ah, on the Graham deathship, some of the inmates are getting restless. First the innocuous weather guy says, Wills is a cheater, then the cartoon. These are faint gestures against pissing away the paper’s integrity, which unfortunately happened long ago, when the Post, the money losing wing of a testing company that loved loved loved the No Child Left Untested policy of the Bushies, hitched itself to that malign junta.
Greg Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Will stonewalled, figuring it would go away… And, it hasn’t. The times they are a’changing. My guess is that columnists younger and less connected than Will are watching this, because Will’s reputation has taken a real hit.

Really? Will still has a reputation?

The problem is that for a columnist like Will, his tenure is as secure as a professor’s at an Ivy League school.

Because in a world that actually cared about his reputation, Will would have been fired ages ago.
johnnyk Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Once again management eunuchs letting the workers carry the fight. Grow two, Hiatt.
Ted Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
@13: interesting point, and worthy of discussion.

I think it’s certainly a good thing to acknowledge the degrees of uncertainty that attend any prediction about the future.

But I don’t quite agree that all we have to go on is that “most scientists agree.” I would admit that that’s the biggest piece of the puzzle, and not one to be neglected.

But anyone with a moderate degree of familiarity with statistics (which, I admit, is a minority) can examine some of the data and understand its significance.

Beyond that, there are straightforward kinds of (admittedly) anecdotal evidence. If you visit the Alps, you can look at the present position of glaciers, and compare the old postcards. It’s striking. Satellite maps of arctic sea ice can be striking as well.

It’s really an interesting problem — and not at all an easy one — conveying this sort of science to the public. People don’t necessarily need to understand all the details of the underlying models. Pragmatically, we aren’t going to, and when we *think* we’re understanding it all, we’re probably fooling ourselves. But it is important for people to understand, generally, how scientific credibility is constructed and assessed.

For instance, I can see that it would be very, very helpful if our high school curriculum included a bit more about basic statistics. In a world this complex, citizens really do need to understand that there’s a difference between a “trend” and a line you draw to connect two arbitrarily chosen data points.
Hleaf Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
This was a bad column, with bad information. But anyone who reads Will regularly or watches him on This Week knows that he is a serious, thoughtful individual who brings far more to the table than partisan right-wing hackery. He’s been stubborn here and he shouldn’t have been, but to start calling for the heads of anyone who has written one bad column (or blog post) is insane.
JM Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
So, Matt, when are you going to develop an obsession with correcting the Post’s bad work on non-politically correct topics?

What the hell does AGW have to do with “political correctness”? “Political correctness” is a way for conservatives to whine about not being allowed to speak, if only as a cover for the fact that they have nothing to say. What in the name of Ron McKelvey do carbon emissions have to do with conservative intellectual impotence?

It’s like when Hannity referred to a pot farm as a “liberal pot farm.” When conservatives speak their mental shorthand, we can see how desperately stupid they are.
JM Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
But anyone who reads Will regularly or …

Uh, no. I’ve been reading George Will since the Reagan administration, and he’s always been an irredeemable sack of lying shit.
rea Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Well, as obnoxious as I find Will, I suspect that he’s sincere in his beliefs. * * * But silencing someone for their opinions makes us just as evil as them. * * * I’ve heard that the 1st Amendment protects free speech — even the speech of crackpots.

He’s entitled to his own beliefs; he’s not entitled to his own facts. Nobody is trying to silence him. Nobody is suggesting that the government ought to ban George Will’s column. But, the 1st Amendment does not prevent the likes of George Will from being hooted off the national stage as an absurd liar. That’s freedom of speech in action–there’s a marketplace of ideas out there, and metaphorical irate customers are returning George Wills’ ideas with demands for refunds.
Walker Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Toles regular has ideas that are only sketched, but are abandoned an do not go to print. This may because the cartoon does not work, or something more important arises, or whatever.

He occasionally makes these abandoned sketches available online. That is what this is.
MikeJ Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
He’s been stubborn here and he shouldn’t have been, but to start calling for the heads of anyone who has written one bad column (or blog post) is insane.

I don’t think people are that upset just because of one “mistake”. It’s the failure to acknowledge and correct it.
Hleaf Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
The problem with all of your tones is the matter of degree. You have the same tenor and vocabulary that you’d use with Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh. It hurts both arguments, because you seem less credible on both arguments. If you think that George Will is comparable with Rush or Savage, you’re unreasonable and knee-jerk. I like reading Will, his arguments are generally reasonable and logical, though I disagree with them most of the time.
bsr Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
“But anyone who reads Will regularly or watches him on This Week knows that he is a serious, thoughtful individual who brings far more to the table than partisan right-wing hackery.”

No, your are incorrect. George Will is nothing but a right-wing hack. This was evident when he helped Coach Reagen in the Reagen vs. Carter debates using a stategy book stolen from the Cater team, then got on the news afterwards to praise Reagen for his performance over Carter, never informing his readers that he himself (George Will) was a key factor in coaching Reagen with documents stolen from Carter’s team. He is nothing but a propagandist for the GOP and has been for some time. He has no journalistic ethics to speak of.
Choska Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
I like reading Will, his arguments are generally reasonable and logical, though I disagree with them most of the time.

You might like reading will, but your assertion that his arguments are reasonable and logical is false. I read him extensively until a few years ago when the half truths and carefully selected facts started to make my head explode.

He is a partisan hack who couches his arguments in well-structured sentences. By selectively quoting his sources, or choosing illegitimate sources like Cato or Heritage, he creates arguments that only sound reasonable but aren’t because his facts are wrong – and deliberately wrong.

And that is the real problem here. Will (and Broder) make arguments that are based on falsehoods or half-truths. The Washington Post is undermining its own brand by allowing its most prominent columnists to put forth propaganda.

That is the Post’s choice, of course. Personally I’m fine with that. The more lies and liars they publish the faster their already shrinking subscriber base will dwindle. A world without the Washington Post will be a better world. It will mean that the Congress-critters will have one less large media outlet to mindlessly suck up to.

It will also mean a more balanced media landscape. Right now their is a kind of three-legged stool in media land where there are the progressive/fact based blogs, the conservative radio and television establishment, and the “mainstream” media outlets like the Post and the cable news outlets that publish and air lots of lies and liars like Will and Broder. Most of these mainstream outlets, while not entirely conservative, certainly lean that way. At least they are happy to allow liars to get away with lying, or to uncritically report lies. (See Contessa Brewer telling William Cohen that Obama’s 4% raise in the Pentagon budget is a “cut.”)

The demise of outlets like the Post is nothing but a good thing as it will create a more level playing field for fact-based voices like ThinkProgress and TPM. For sure there will always be an audience for people who want to be lied to. Drudge and Politico seem to be doing okay. But ultimately that audience isn’t very big, as the backers of Pajamas Media have found out.

By the way, Hleaf, you say you find Will’s arguments reasonable and logical but that you disagree with him. How is that possible? Seems to me that if an argument is reasonable and logical that you should agree with it.

Don’t get fooled by Will’s facility with language or his appearance. Underneath that bow tie beats the heart of a man who has demonstrated over and over again that he will repeatedly lie and distort facts in order to advance an ideology. And there is nothing reasonable or logical about that.
Vidor Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
George Will is a liar and deserves to be treated as such.

I don’t get the cartoon. Is there a joke?
Ted Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
@32 yeah it’s pretty weak

see he’s got an idea (light bulb) — which turns out to be the idea for his column on light bulbs

yeah, I know
Hleaf Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
“By the way, Hleaf, you say you find Will’s arguments reasonable and logical but that you disagree with him. How is that possible? Seems to me that if an argument is reasonable and logical that you should agree with it. ”

Because most issues are difficult fucking things, mostly. Obviously some are clear cut (like torture). But issues like spending, like issues of personal liberty against taxes are difficult. Has it never occurred to you these issues are so heavily debated because very, very intelligent people have different opinions that might both be logical? Has it never popped into your brain once, just once, that maybe you’re wrong? I have liberal beliefs about a safety net and approval of government paternalism, but I read conservative writers like Will because I am afraid that we’re wrong – that the law of unintended consequences that serious, intellectual conservatives talk about could destroy the programs I believe in. To hide in a cocoon of Rachel Maddow and blogs that you agree with is dangerous, and you risk becoming a dittohead of a different stripe.
tomtom Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
If Will is a hack what is Bill Kristol? A hackety hack?

I recall reading some fairly sharp Will pieces on GWB.

Will’s a conservative. He is not going to come to the same conclusion as a liberal. He is not going to dump on a Republican as quickly as he would dump on a Democrat. Who would expect otherwise? Still, once in a while he says something worthwhile and speaks a little truth to power. That is why this hurts his reputation.

Will (and Noonan and Douthat and Frum) have reputations that they are not 100% in the sack. 90%, sure, but that 10% counts. Will is squandering it on a stupidity, and he is too out of touch (or too old and comfortable) to care.

It is an unforced error.
tomtom Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
sorry about the italics
This Machine Kills Fascists Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 1:07 am
The newspaper shouldn’t be printing stuff that’s not true

Neither should a blog.

Neither should commenters.

Exactly.

Byeee!
Ted Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 9:07 am
@35 — yes, exactly. But Will’s reputation was always undeserved.

Sadly, readers aren’t all that good at telling the difference between real critical thinking — and someone who wraps his ideological reflexes in a gauzy veil of harrumphing skepticism and cosmetic moderation.

Will was always the latter. I think MY and JMM are the former, but that’s not going to impress anyone since I’m a liberal anyway, so of course I see them as independent thinkers. If I wanted an example of a conservative who genuinely thinks critically — even though I reject his premises and conclusions wholesale — I’d point maybe to Ross Douthat. But Will was never the genuine article.
Statistical Sophisticate Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 9:36 am
“Whatever. At least we’re hearing both sides of the story .”

Unfortunately, the anti-global-warming side is lies.

@21:
“But I don’t quite agree that all we have to go on is that “most scientists agree.” I would admit that that’s the biggest piece of the puzzle, and not one to be neglected.

But anyone with a moderate degree of familiarity with statistics (which, I admit, is a minority) can examine some of the data and understand its significance.”

A comforting but dangerous delusion which I once shared. Alas, someone expert in a field can make almost anything sound plausible by leaving out facts, omitting other things going on at the time, lies, distortions, etc., to the point where only someone who knows the area can tell what’s wrong. This is especially true in a subject like climate, where the data is subject to enough random variation and there have been enough studies that, by chance, there will be a small number supporting anything.

In the global warming field nothing makes sense except in the context of a number of other things, and also of the modeling issues involved. There is no way to navigate this without paying some high dues.

The same is true in an increasing number of important areas. It’s depressing but true that the problem of knowing what to think is in these cases being reduced to the problem of knowing whom to believe.

Me, I believe Paul Krugman. Beyond that I’m not sure.
unreasonable Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I’ve seen several posters here making claims that “George Will is not like Limbaugh”, “he seems reasonable”, etc. The reason why this is so important is that most reasonable people would recognize that Limbaugh is a propagandist. He is paid to put out false information. He knows it, his bosses know it. Neither he nor they are that unintelligent. Limbaugh generally makes up facts or distorts facts to help is neanderthal audience not have to face reality. To Limbaugh, replacing Saddam with a Iranian friendly regime at the cost of perhaps a million lives, most of them innocent, and 1-2 trillion dollars is a “victory”. Actually, this isn’t a lie in and of itself, just his reasoning. He believes it is a victory because that 1-2 trillion dollars mostly sent to Republicans (defense contractors, who then “donate to Republican congressmen’s campaigns or hire them as lobbyists in after the fact bribes) and now won’t be available to fix social security or health care, which we really can’t afford to do with all of this debt. Will, on the other hand, as some have pointed out, is a “serious” “journalist”. Like Limbuagh, he knew he was lying when he wrote his column. The editors knew he was lying. There job is to help mostly Republican businessmen keep polluting. Despite claims I see here about Will being “reasonable”, he sounds a lot like Limbaugh. He’s just a slightly more sophisticated liar. He has always been that way. There is nothing new here except for the directness of the lie. Almost the entire establishment media is quite securely in Republican hands. Will always used to exaggerate but he didn’t have such ridiculous policies on which to attempt to put lipstick on. Iraq? Torture? Endless debt and tax cuts? Protecting marriage? In my opinion, many of these policies all came about because the Republican’s found that they couldn’t get enough people interested in cutting taxes for the wealthy, there only real desire. So they pretended to become anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc. Of course, the problem they now face is that a majority of members of their party now believe that these social issues are the most important. In fact, a law could have been easily passed when Republican’s controlled the White House and Congress for six years. Of course, passing a law against abortion would wake up liberals and might lose some of their most ardent supporters once the anti-abortion battle cry was no longer necessary. We who are on the underdogs must be unreasonable. As long as Limbaugh, Scarborough, O’Reilly, Will, Hiatt, and the rest are seen as in anyway acceptable, we should be at war. And I don’t say that lightly but because that is how they see it.

Matt Yglesias

Tom Toles Hits George Will

40 Responses to “Tom Toles Hits George Will”

Blogroll