skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Jonathan Chiat explains.
Committing the odd factual error is an occupational hazard in
journalism. For Niall Ferguson, the commission of error is more than a
hazard. It’s a cherished way of life. Ferguson’s distinct contribution
to the contemporary political debate is the fascinating juxtaposition of
his prestige — author, Harvard professor, resident faculty member of
the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, senior fellow at the
Hoover Institution, omnipresent talking head, and all-around handsome
authority figure — with an inability to get his facts straight. There
is, of course, a link between the two aspects of Ferguson’s profile:
Only a figure of his standing would have the ability to publish wildly
erroneous claims in major mainstream publications.
Ferguson has finally put his practice into theory. Apparently
aware that his habits require a broader defense than “whoops,” his
latest Spectator column assails his many fact-checkers for their literalness, and gestures toward a novel theory of truth.
..... {Some examples}
Since David Cameron is irrefutably good, and Obama irrefutably
bad, Ferguson should be free to make any factual statement on behalf of
the former and against the latter without being hounded by
“fact-checkers.”
