Calling It What It Is

There you go again, Mr. George Will. 



In case you've somehow missed the fray, George Will has posted two ( href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021302514.html">2/15/2009,
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022602906.html">2/29/09 2/27/2009
) columns containing misinformation about climate change.  These
have been debunked and otherwise criticized on href="http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=george+will&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=search">ScienceBlogs
and elsewhere.  It was refreshing to see a chorus of objections
arising, not only from the href="http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/george-will-and-the-washington-post-reputations-gone-up-in-smoke-over-global-warming-denialism/">scientific
href="http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/02/the-george-will-scandal/">community,
but from the journalistic
community
and the href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/23/george-will-zombie/">general
href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/hiatt_will_challenging_climate_change_consensus_is.php?ref=m3">blogosphere. 
(When href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486841811817591.html?mod=moj_columnists">Bret
Stephens wrote a similar column in the Wall Street Journal in July
2008, there was href="http://www.desmogblog.com/wall-street-journal-bret-stephens-global-warming-sick-souled-religion">some
rebuttal, but not a general uprising.)



Much of the initial commentary was focused on the question of the
truthfulness of Will's columns.  The columns were full of
lies.  The second round of commentary focused on the process of href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/02/16/george-will-liberated-from-the-burden-of-fact-checking/">fact
checking and the href="http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200902270026">role of the
ombudsman.  Others argued about whether Will is acting as a
journalist or a columnist, and whether there are different standards
for the two. 



As href="http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/02/george_f_will_ethics_conservat.php">James
Hrynyshyn stated:

I suspect that the failure of so-called "responsible" new
outlets to police their own columnists is a major reason why so few
Americans and Canadians have any confidence in journalists to tell them
what's really going on in the world. At some point, the Washington
Post's reputation won't be worth anything more than that of Fox News or
Rush Limbaugh. And that would be a shame.



Will is giving journalism a bad name. And it's time to do something
about it.

George will is doing the same thing href="http://www.denialism.com/labels/George%20Will.html">over and
over
again, and expecting the same result.  That makes sense, I guess,
in that it accomplishes the goal of dumbing down the population so they
will put up with the the efforts of those who would become wealthy via
extractive industry. 



He is repeating lies, in the service of propaganda.  So what do we
do about it?  We call it what it is: propaganda.  He
is misleading the public so their wealth can be appropriated more
easily.  This is not a public service.  It is an immoral
venture.  So we call it what it is, and keep calling him out every
time he and his two-bit cronies do the same thing.  Will it
work?  Yes, although not quickly.