Where Are The Editors?
George Monbiot bores into the reporting (past and present) of the UK’s David Rose, who seems to have a stellar record of getting big stories wrong. But Monbiot should have spread the blame around, because as Daniel Okrent noted in his own castigation of the NY Times’ WMD coverage in the run-up to the Iraq war,
reporters do not put stories into the newspaper. Editors make assignments, accept articles for publication, pass them through various editing hands, place them on a schedule, determine where they will appear. Editors are also obliged to assign follow-up pieces when the facts remain mired in partisan quicksand.
The point being, if a guy like Rose has a history of screwing up, his editors–and the newspaper he works for–should be held just as accountable.
At a large publication, is essentially everything supposed to be fact checked? In the ideal – which I suppose is rare anyway – to what degree does an editor trust a reporter?
It’s hard for us on the outside to know who to blame, and the reporter’s name is the one we see attached to the article. Maybe they should print both names? I’ve learned that reporters rarely get to choose the headline, and I tend to assume that resources for fact-checking are a lot less than they used to be for large newspapers.
Dean, here’s how it works: most mainstream magazines fact check. It’s been built into the institutional DNA of magazines.
But even at magazines, assignment editors, copyeditors/managing editors/editor in chief, all generally weigh in on a story.
Newspapers, on the other hand, are a different animal, largely because of the quick deadlines and sheer amount of content. That said, big investigative pieces get combed over pretty well (again, they have the luxury of time) and certainly sensitive stories involving national security (as we’ve seen with the recent Wikileaks batch).
But even then, including stories on a quick turn-around, newspaper editors are supposed have the chops to vet tough stories. And yes, as Okrent said in the piece I linked to, newspaper articles at major newspapers generally get worked over pretty good at various editorial levels.
The thing about Rose is that he apparently has a well-trod record of messing up, so you would think editors would be on extra alert with him. That’s why I think blame should be apportioned out to the Daily Mail.
Is this a guest post by Joe Romm?
#3:
Huh? Did spittle shoot out of your screen as you were reading it? Although now that you mention him, I see he’s pretty much reproduced Monbiot’s take-down.
He’s on Fred Hiatt at WaPo all the time mistakes w.r.t. George Will, etc. Many other examples… I.e. he has made the point you are saying here many, many times.
You don’t seem to like him much, and I don’t read everything, but the fact is that he gets most of the issue-based stuff correct.
Gee, to a non-journalist layperson, given Rose’s history of mistakes regarding climate stories (all in the same direction it appears) it would seem quite plausible that Rose’s most recent error-riddled story was printed not because the Daily Mail’s editors screwed up, but precisely because it was exactly what the Daily Mail’s editors were looking for – red meat for their target audience, with the presence of multiple substantive mistakes being entirely irrelevant. What’s so hard about that?
Monbiot has not found a smoking gun. Just looking at his first “take-down”:
Monbiot: ‘And there was nothing “confident” about it. The press release said that a record warm year “is not a certainty, especially if …’
Met Office Press Release Headline: ‘Climate could warm to record levels in 2010‘
Met Office continues: ‘Global temperature for 2010 is expected to be 14.58 °C, the warmest on record.’
How exactly is Rose wrong here?
Maybe Rose has exaggerated a bit – but so has Monbiot.
The Met Office was not forced to issue this press release.
They chose to tell the world. And they chose to say
Global temperature for 2010 is expected to be 14.58 °C, the warmest on record.
Nobody forced them to say anything and nobody forced them to choose their message. They seem pretty confident about it.
If they were not confident they could have said “we don’t know” – or not said anything.
So the charge stands: the Met Office were confident that 2010 would be a record warm year.
It’s fascinating how Monbiot can ignore major errors in the IPCC reports but then starts nitpicking on a piece by a fellow-journo in a tabloid newspaper.
I find myself agreeing with LCarey:
it was exactly what the IPCC’s editors were looking for ““ red meat for their target audience, with the presence of multiple substantive mistakes being entirely irrelevant
Well, if we’re going to discuss the substance of Rose’s complaints about the Met Office’s supposedly blatantly erroneous forecast regarding 2010, let’s turn the discussion over to Dr. Roy Spencer, posting last Friday:
“2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year, with the following averages through November:
“1998 +0.538
“2010 +0.526
“December will determine the outcome, but remember that the difference between the two years is not statistically significant.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/nov-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-38-deg-c/
So, the Monbiot article is how David Rose, writing for one of the major UK news organs, gets the facts all wrong, again…and KK decides the most worthy thing to write about is Monbiot’s to blame Rose’s editors?
This is the sort bizarre choice of focus/blame that just has me shaking my head at your blog sometimes, K.
But let’s engage it. Yeah, Keith, of course the editors are at fault too. But I’m kinda guessing the Murdoch-hired editors wouldn’t consider Rose’s claims to be ‘screwups’ to be ‘caught’ in the first place.
Then there’s Jack Hughes. Sir, try READING the Monbiot article before braying: “So the charge stands: the Met Office were confident that 2010 would be a record warm year.”
Yeah *so very* confident that the press release ALSO said that the prediction “is not a certainty, especially if the current El Niño was to unexpectedly decline rapidly near the start of 2010, or if there was a large volcanic eruption.”
Hi ho! Guess what happened near the start of 2010!
Monbiot’s other ‘nitpicks’ include Rose’s retailing of the debunked ‘skeptical’ spins on Phil Jones’s ‘statistical significance’ quote (hardly ‘little noticed’ if google is any indication btw) and Ken Trenberth’s ‘ it’s a disgrace’ quote (I’m frankly shocked that ‘hide the decline’ wasn’t also included). Trenberth himself *directly refutes* Rose in the Monbiot comments. The dishonest skeptic ‘spins’ on these have been laid to rest well and thoroughly before, yet there they are again in Rose’s article, like good little zombies.
SS (11):
Amazing. What exactly are you braying at? That I didn’t reproduce Monbiot’s column, like Romm? That I didn’t echo it by simply grunting, “Rose is a bad, bad boy. Way to go Monbiat!
If you’re looking for feel good affirmation via echo chamber drivel, you should know by now you’re at the wrong place.
If I think I can add a new wrinkle to something that people might find of interest, that’s what I try to do. You’re free to disagree with that wrinkle, as you often do. But really, in this case, what is your point? Should I have not pointed out that editors are as much to blame for publishing a repeat offender? I mean, c’mon, already. Your complaint here is utterly absurd.
Hi Keith,
You seem to blame Monbiot for not going after the editors / newspaper. Isn’t this a much harder case to pursue – after all a newspaper can always throw out the “but we published (some AGW advocate’s views)”. I think if a journalist is consistently getting something wrong, they should be called on it.
I suppose if an editor / newspaper is, they should be called on it too. Deltoid’s consistent attacks on The Australian + their editors is an example of this. Do you agree with Tim Lambert’s approach?
Warm Regards.
Tongo,
I don’t “blame” Monbiot; I’m not suggesting that Rose not be called out. What I did say is that Monbiot could have spread the blame around, and because he brought up the British equivalent of the shoddy reporting in run-up to Iraq war, I provided a link to an excellent article by a previous ombudsman for the NYT, who rightfully held the Times’ editors to account.
If this was a one or two time deal by Rose, maybe you give the editors a pass. But since Rose has a history, it seems even more incumbent on his editors to make sure he’s got a story right.
Hi Keith,
How can one hold a newspaper or editor (or blog) to account if they are publishing misleading stories that are to the taste of the readers / proprietor?
Especially if you are generally seen as an ideological opponent?
Regards.
Monbiot writes the most amazing nonsense. He quibbles about whether a forecast was issued on Dec 7th or Dec 10th, and about the distinction between “forecast” and “prediction”.
He even tries to blame David Rose for the Iraq war! “it is arguable that the Observer could not have sustained its position were it not for Rose’s reporting; that Blair could not have contained the Labour revolt were it not for the Observer; and that Bush could not have gone to war were it not for Blair’s support.”
He is a joke.
Journalists regularly exaggerate global warming scare stories (like the recent false story about scientists calling for rationing) – and do George and Keith complain about that?
Charles,
The one thing that did give me pause was the assertion that Rose’s reporting had such influence in the run-up to Iraq war. But I’m not familiar with how it all went down in the UK so I have no way to know if Monbiot exaggerated that or not.
In the case of the U.S., no one reporter played such an outsized role (even Judith Miller); it was an aggregate of timidness and stenography.
Slightly OT, but links in well with a couple of recent threads on this blog: http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/12/adult-supervision-required.html
It seems OT, but since you bring it up- if the reporting on WMD in Iraq was an example of “timidness and stenography” it began in the late 1990s when Clinton and Gore were making the claim to justify their attacks on Iraq. If you take the view that life and history existed prior to 2001, then the reporting of WMD during the Bush years was consistent. Of course, that’s one of the problems with AGW – if you acknowledge world history, then you know the claims of “unprecedented” warmth, ice loss, hurricane activity, drought, etc etc is bunk.
+1 @ #12
Keith, does it occur to you that Monbiot (and his readers in the UK) are probably already well aware that there is editorial bias at the Mail, and in what direction it lies? Might it practically *go without saying* to him and to his UK readers, that , yes, of course, Murdoch’s editorial underlings are implicit in this travesty too?
It just seems perverse to me for Monbiot to spend all that verbiage detailing the egregious misreporting of a fellow journalist who writes about climate change …and your only comment is that he should have also given the editors a slap. What did you think of the *substance* of Monbiot’s critique of his fellow journalist? Do you think he made a good case against Rose ? Why or why not?
If Monbiot had slipped in a phrase chiding the editors somewhere in his takedown of Rose, would you have found his article postworthy at all?
btw, fwiw, the first line of #11 should should have been “… KK decides the most worthy thing to write about is Monbiot’s -failure- to blame Rose’s editors?”