Challenging the Pundits
If I were to try to evaluate the accuracy of a set of pundits in addition to their partisanship, how would I do it? I evaluate every partisan reference in every column, but obviously I can’t investigate every factual assertion in every column for accuracy. Many bloggers spend hours of their time picking apart the columns of their least-favorite pundit. What if Lying in Ponds could serve as a clearinghouse by keeping a record of substantive challenges to each columnist, along with a defense made in their behalf and the final outcome of the issue?
Perhaps I could find interested bloggers or others to choose the role of either critic or defender of a single pundit. When a critic thinks they’ve found a substantive problem of accuracy or fairness, they could write up a challenge (limited to no more than one per month), which they could post on this website and/or their own. Then the defender would be expected to post a response, and I would forward the issue to the pundit or to their editor if appropriate. Then I would monitor the outcome of each challenge, to document whether the columnist ultimately issues a correction or rowback, offers a defense, or is unresponsive.
To illustrate the concept with a true but non-substantive example, here’s the way a challenge to William Safire back in 2002 might have looked:
|
Challenge: In his column of 24 January 2002, William Safire referred to “the failure of a dog named Silver Blaze to bark” in a Sherlock Holmes story. As any Holmes fan knows, Silver Blaze was the name of the missing racehorse in the story, not the famous but unnamed dog that didn’t bark.
Defense: If the dog in the story was unnamed, then perhaps its name actually was Silver Blaze, just like the horse! Why couldn’t someone give the same name to a horse and a dog? And who cares anyway? Result: In a subsequent column entitled “Holmes’s Horse’s Dog” (7 February 2002), Mr. Safire corrected his error, after hearing from “no fewer than 753 irate Holmes fans”. |
A portion of a table summarizing these challenges for a single pundit might look something like this:
| Column | Challenge | Defense | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pouring Gasoline on the Fire 12 April 2002 |
The author claims that current gas prices are at a record high, but they were higher in the 1980’s when adjusted for inflation. | Agreed. | Forwarded to the author and editorial page editor, but no response has been received and no correction issued. |
| The American Pastime 30 March 2002 |
The claim was made that Barry Bonds is currently the best player in baseball, when it’s obvious that Albert Pujols is actually the best player. | That’s purely a matter of opinion. | Not substantive enough to pursue. |
| That Dog Won’t Bark 24 January 2002 |
The horse’s name was Silver Blaze, not the dog. | The dog was unnamed. Who cares anyway? | Correction issued in 7 February 2002 column. |
When accumulated over many months or years, tables for each pundit may help highlight substantial differences in accuracy or responsiveness.
