Should Pundits Apologize More Often?
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
One norm I’d really like to see emerge is pundits admitting error and apologizing when they get things wrong, and Frum did that. But I’m curious what other norms, if any, should be strengthened among the pontificating class.
I’d dissent slightly from this. Should pundits do a better job of admitting when they get things wrong? Sure. Who can argue with that? But should they apologize? I’m not so sure. Being wrong isn’t a sin, after all, especially for someone in the business of offering up opinions. I’d be happy to see a bit more self-reflection about what caused the error, but there’s no need for an apology.
Now, Drezner wrote this in the context of David Frum’s allegation that a New York Times photo had been faked, which turned out to be untrue. This is obviously a case that calls for an apology since Frum accused someone of wrongdoing. But that’s a bit different from simply being wrong in an analytic or predictive way. That kind of error, as long as it’s honest, deserves some reflection, but not an apology.
See original article here:
