The National Review is a popular publications among conservatives. This is probably unfortunate, given for example their inexplicable flirtations with dubious ideas such as Intelligent Design. That, however, may not be a random occurrance - it seems as though they don't really make much effort to check the facts in articles they publish. To call that irresponsible would be an understatement.

Ted writes at Crooked Timber:

Last year, I was curious about the fact-checking procedures at the major reputable opinion journals, so I started calling around. ... The Weekly Standard and the American Prospect employ full-time fact-checkers, while the Nation, the Washington Monthly, and the New Republic have their armies of interns do fact-checking. ... National Review was the stand-out exception. When I called and asked to speak to the person in charge of fact-checking, I was forwarded to John Virtes, who was described to me as the librarian.

Every other fact-checker that I spoke to stressed the importance of primary sources and always checking quotes. Mr. Virtes said that he uses newspapers and reliable websites, and that he calls people when he needs to. Other fact-checkers told me that small changes to stories were frequently made as a result of fact-checking. Mr. Virtes didn’t say that that was the case. The difference was noticeable.

Irresponsible? That doesn't even begin to describe this situation. I'm not sure that The National Review can even honestly call what they do "journalism" if they lag so far beyond everyone else when it comes to something as basic and necessary as checking facts. Journalism depends upon being trustworthy and on adhering to certain ethical standards. This publication's failure to do what is necessary to justify being trusted eliminates them from consideration as a source for anything but something to laugh at.

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality