I’m working up a response to your point about the failure of the Washington Post’s fact checking process. It will be a separate post.

– Tom

Since we’ve been beating up on Will, you should know that he has a rather interesting column out today in which he makes some slight criticism of the the agri-industry and the Department of Agriculture. I call today’s column interesting because Will could have continued with the libertarian “free market, consumer choice, liberals just don’t get it” theme which ran as a subtext in his writing on climate change and earlier columns on second hand smoke.

In fact, Will almost comes off like some quasi-liberal with his hinting that government needs to make some changes in federal food policy. Although it could be that he’s just using the issue as a tool to make subtle criticism of a government agency, a favorite saw of his.

I’m not really certain why he seems to be ignoring the obvious science on climate change and ignored the science on second hand smoke in the past, yet seems to readily embrace equally obvious evidence when it concerns weight gain and diabetes, and the link between this weight gain and our food policies resulting in agriculture subsidies to corn growers.

My suspicion is that, unlike Big Tobacco and Big Oil, corn growers have not coalesced into an effective lobby that has created a well-oiled disinformation campaign. There are no front groups questioning the science on weight gain and diabetes. No scientists who are paid shills or third-tier researchers who pony up contrarian views about corn subsidies to get on Fox News or notice by right-wing news sites. No “Honest Brokers” digging through Michael Pollan’s book to try and gig him on some minor fact and then passing it off to the New York Times to get some press time and add “balance” to a news story. No “Honest Brokers” calling doctors who raise the alarm over increased diabetes rates “advocates” and raising concern that they are selling out their professional duties to “provide policy options.”

So why hasn’t the corn lobby created such a beast as “Big is Beautiful” movement? My guess is that the corn lobby is just one of many interest groups in agriculture and would have a tough time dominating the discussion on food policy. You just got too many interest groups with different views. Also, if the Dept of Ag shifts policy away from corn to something else, the interest groups still get their money, although the pie would be divided in slightly different wedges.

This is not the same with second hand smoke and climate change. On these public health issues, the science creates industry fears of excessive regulation and a resulting drop in profits. They react accordingly.

You kept up with the inappropriate “tribe” meme, even after it was pointed out to you that your slipshod foray into social anthropology was really not working. You’re on the internet now. It’s not like writing for a magazine where the editor gets to pick which bits of criticism to run, sometimes with a counter from journalist.

Inverting the issue with phony jibes about “coarse language” and “ad hom” doesn’t really work, Mr. “Thin Gruel.” On a blog, you get criticized in real time. Sorry if you find that a wee soul crushing.

I had asked you to refrain from using coarse language and ad hominem attacks. You still couldn’t help yourself. So then I deleted the most offensive comments and emailed you personally to tell you.

Let me try and reconstruct them here.

Keith, your concern over ad hominem is, well….feigned. See your clever “thin gruel” jab at Steve Bloom for further understanding. Also, the continuous use of the word “tribe” (your witty take on RPJr’s “your team”) to describe people who disagree with RPJr’s relentless attacks on credible scientists and climate science is equally banal.

If we belong to a tribe, it’s the one that can’t stand dishonesty, especially when it tries to cast itself as an “honest broker.” The same tribe that dislikes individuals who claim respect for the First Amendment, and then ban people who skewer their muddled thinking.

Re censorship, what about the claimed layers of fact-checking? It seems to me that the issue here is the abject failure of that process. Note that Fred Hiatt tried to defend himself by arguing that opinion columnists should be free to be selective about facts (i.e. ignore contrary ones), but did not try to assert that it was OK for them to build arguments on straight-up falsehoods.

I would think that from a journalism prof’s POV the most interesting thing about this affair would be these multiple clear failures of internal process and the dishonesty and/or cognitive dissonance that they expose.

Equally interesting is the number of times that Will repeated falsehoods about second hand smoke years after the federal government concluded in 1992 that there was a danger.

So this is a pattern for Will. I don’t think that we should expect any changes.