May 18, 2006

In Which Lucy Caldwell Gets Smacked Down, Booyah.


Oh, dearie me! Our old friend Lucy Caldwell is in big trouble! As it turns out, her most recent editorial (about how charities are useless and corrupt) contained MAJOR factual errors. Major as in everything she said was totally wrong. Not that that's new. But this time, she fucked up indisputable facts. Which, you know, is kind of a thing when you write for The Only Morning Daily In Cambridge aka The Only College Newspaper With Its Own Printing Press aka The Oldest College Daily In The Country.

So yeah, inside sources say the editorial board is really fucking pissed. This shit does not make them look good.

Check out the correction they printed (emphasis mine... ooo, busted!):

The May 15, 2006 op-ed, “Corrupt Charities,” incorrectly stated the percentage of donations to several charities that goes towards the people and programs that the charities exist to serve. According to Charity Navigator, a non-profit organization that reviews charitable groups, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation spends 76.2 percent of money on its causes, not 13 percent. The Greenpeace Fund spends 78.8 percent on its causes, not 18 percent. The March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation spends 75.1 percent, not 18 percent. Charity Navigator does, however, rate the efficiency of Greenpeace and March of Dimes as deserving only two stars, which signifies that it “needs improvement.” The Komen Foundation received a three-star “good” rating.

These significant mistakes occurred because the writer did not correctly read the information on the organizations listed on Charity Navigator’s website. Though Crimson policy is that all pieces must be fact-checked by an editor, the editor of this piece also misread the numbers.

The Crimson will investigate how the writer, the editor of the piece, and two proofers missed the factual inaccuracies, and will move to ensure that existing fact-checking policies are strictly followed so that similar errors will not happen in the future.

Yeah, karma sure is a bitch, isn't it Lucy?

Update: Looks like this was just not really a good day for facts over at 14 Plympton St.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Consistently convoluting facts! Esp. in the magazine.

tea cozy said...

hey, the mean comment I wrote on the caldwell ed was stricken from the record, apparently!

I was just suggesting they might also want to include a couple of corrections on the ACS stats --- 69.9 % spent on actual charity, and also the Phoenix New Times article was 1995, not 2005. which I found out in 30 seconds on google.

I guess I'm just too mean to live.

Anonymous said...

Lucy Caldwell is so horrible. I really truly hate her.

Anonymous said...

What is wrong with you people? I thought this was a constructive and informative blog until I read this post. This is disgusting, vindictive, mean, callous, etc etc. You could have made a post and talked about mainstream media's faults, the difficulty of correcting errors, the speed at which editorials get printed, etc., but instead, you wrote a vicious critique of a girl--and not an article--who genuinely loves charities (she worked for the past two summers at non-profits) and wants them to be more efficient.

Yes, her facts were wrong, and she's mortified. Embarrased beyond belief. Maybe you can't understand that because thousands of people don't actually read your blog and call you out for errors. And that's really it isn't it? Jealousy that when Ms. Caldwell writes about women's issues and is anti-RUS or anti-bra burning, she has thousands of readers, and you, supporting the other side, have a paltry few in comparison.

My beliefs normally match yours rather than Ms. Caldwell's, so I would love if you all wrote editorials more often. It will do more for your cause than spending your time gloating about Ms. Caldwell's misfortunes.

Karma is a bitch, whoever wrote this, and it's going to smack you back soon.

Anonymous said...

What is wrong with you people? I thought this was a constructive and informative blog until I read this post. This is disgusting, vindictive, mean, callous, etc etc. You could have made a post and talked about mainstream media's faults, the difficulty of correcting errors, the speed at which editorials get printed, etc., but instead, you wrote a vicious critique of a girl--and not an article--who genuinely loves charities (she worked for the past two summers at non-profits) and wants them to be more efficient. 

Yes, her facts were wrong, and she's mortified. Embarrased beyond belief. Maybe you can't understand that because thousands of people don't actually read your blog and call you out for errors. And that's really it isn't it? Jealousy that when Ms. Caldwell writes about women's issues and is anti-RUS or anti-bra burning, she has thousands of readers, and you, supporting the other side, have a paltry few in comparison. 

My beliefs normally match yours rather than Ms. Caldwell's, so I would love if you all wrote editorials more often. It will do more for your cause than spending your time gloating about Ms. Caldwell's misfortunes. 

Karma is a bitch, whoever wrote this, and it's going to smack you back soon.

Anonymous said...

Lucy? Is that you?