I had to spend a couple hours this morning footnoting my next column for Discover so that it can be fact-checked. I had to assemble the papers I read, the web sites I visited, and the contact information for scientists who helped me understand the subject. One of Discover‘s intrepid fact-checkers will then spend many hours following in my footsteps and discovering where I tripped. He or she will have no compunction about writing up a detailed report of my mistakes. I’m sure some mistakes will turn up, and I won’t be angry to see them in a fact-checking report. I’ll be grateful that my column won’t inadvertently misrepresent someone’s research. And I’ll be personally glad to have any misunderstanding of mine put straight.
Fact-checking is an underappreciated art. As John McPhee explains in his recent essay, even a legendary fact-monger like himself benefits from the relentless skepticism of the New Yorker‘s fact-checkers. I got my own start as a fact-checker, and it was the best training I could imagine for science writing. Even when I don’t have the luxury of fact-checkers vetting my own writing, I have an inner skeptic that drives me to double-check whatever I feel unsure about. One of the things I like most about blogging is the after-the-fact fact-checking that comes from commenters who catch mistakes. While accuracy is important for any kind of factual writing, it’s particularly important in science writing, because there are just so many ways to get a story wrong. (Trust me, I know.)
This old fact-checker gets rankled fairly often when I read about science on op-ed pages, because there doesn’t seem to be much fact-checking going on there. It’s not necessary for anyone to fact-check subjective statements like, “We must unleash the inventive genius of America,” or “Harry Potter is boring.” But imagine that someone writing a column about global warming (or the supposed lack thereof) wrote the following:
According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.
Surely somebody should actually check with the people at the center to make sure that statement is true. If not the writer, then somebody whose job it is to make sure that paid columnists do not just make stuff up. Wouldn’t the columns be better? Wouldn’t the publication be better for such standards?
Unfortunately, this is not just an imaginary scenario. George Will delivered this bit of information in his most recent column. And, as Talking Points Memo reports, the research center felt the need to post this statement on their own web site:
This is not a matter of the complex choices between cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, or other responses to global warming. This is a matter of exquisitely simple facts. 16.79 does not equal 15.45.
Of course, this glaring error helps George Will make his case that global warming is nothing to worry about. But it is not true, and two seconds of fact-checking by the Post could have discovered that. It’s fine for op-eds to be a place for opinions. But that doesn’t mean they should be a vacation from facts.
Update, 4/7: In fact, there is no such thing as the University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center. Details here.
Related Topics
Go Further
Animals
- These 'trash fish' are among Earth's most primitive animalsThese 'trash fish' are among Earth's most primitive animals
- These photos are works of art—and the artists are bugsThese photos are works of art—and the artists are bugs
- The epic migration of a 6-foot long, 200-pound catfishThe epic migration of a 6-foot long, 200-pound catfish
- Frans de Waal, biologist who studied animal emotion, dies at 75Frans de Waal, biologist who studied animal emotion, dies at 75
Environment
- Are synthetic diamonds really better for the planet? The answer isn't clear-cut.Are synthetic diamonds really better for the planet? The answer isn't clear-cut.
- This year's cherry blossom peak bloom was a warning signThis year's cherry blossom peak bloom was a warning sign
- The U.S. just announced an asbestos ban. What took so long?The U.S. just announced an asbestos ban. What took so long?
- The most dangerous job? Inside the world of underwater weldersThe most dangerous job? Inside the world of underwater welders
- The harrowing flight that wild whooping cranes make to surviveThe harrowing flight that wild whooping cranes make to survive
History & Culture
- Meet the powerful yokai that inspired the demon king in ‘Demon Slayer’Meet the powerful yokai that inspired the demon king in ‘Demon Slayer’
- A surprising must-wear for European monarchs? Weasels.A surprising must-wear for European monarchs? Weasels.
- Meet the woman who made Polaroid into a cultural iconMeet the woman who made Polaroid into a cultural icon
- Inside the observatory that birthed modern astrophysicsInside the observatory that birthed modern astrophysics
Science
- LED light treatments for skin are trendy—but do they actually work?LED light treatments for skin are trendy—but do they actually work?
- NASA smashed an asteroid. The debris could hit Mars.NASA smashed an asteroid. The debris could hit Mars.
- Humans really can have superpowers—scientists are studying themHumans really can have superpowers—scientists are studying them
- Why engineers are concerned about aging infrastructureWhy engineers are concerned about aging infrastructure
Travel
- Why you should try beach-hopping by boat around Paxos, GreeceWhy you should try beach-hopping by boat around Paxos, Greece
- Mansion museums show visitors the gritty side of the Gilded AgeMansion museums show visitors the gritty side of the Gilded Age
- 2024 will be huge for astrotourism—here’s how to plan your trip2024 will be huge for astrotourism—here’s how to plan your trip