So (now ex-) Emory professor Michael Bellesiles is found by a committee of historians to have grossly ignored academic norms in his much-ballyhooed book Arming America. Shortly thereafter, Columbia University decides to revoke the prestigious Bancroft Prize he’d recieved for the book. It’s the first time that’s happened and, one would think, something of a big deal.

Washington Post’s estimation of its significance? 343 words.

Fast forward about a month. A Danish committee translates into English a brief report claiming “scientific dishonesty” on the part of Bjorn Lomborg in his anti-doomsayer book The Skeptical Environmentalist. The claims are old hat, and have already been replied to by Lomborg, though the translation makes no mention of the fact. Neither does the WaPo article, suggesting that not only did they fail to get in touch with Lomborg, they didn’t look at his website either. No über-prestigious prize involved; it’s basically just a press release saying they think his book is one-sided and contains some errors.

Washington Post reaction: 381 words.

The article on Bellesiles, who it’s now pretty clear just plain fabricated data — “made shit up,” to use the technical term — makes it sound like there’s some real question about the validity of the thing. They mention that “gun advocates” led the initial assault on the book, whereas Lomborg was attacked by “distinguished scientists.” There were some “environmental groups” too, but they’re balanced by the “corporate sponsored groups and libertarian Washington think tanks” who are apparently Lomborg’s only supporters. Never mind that a full-blown assault in Scientific American turned up only relatively minor errors, or that plenty of scientists — including some who had penned studies critics claimed Lomborg “misinterpreted” — wrote in to defend him. Maybe this is just my bias creeping in, but it sure seems weird that of these two stories — Columbia University revokes prestigious prize for fraud / Danish government committee translates some criticisms — the latter gets anywhere near as much (let alone slightly more) space.

Update:Knopf has just pulled the Bellesiles book. And The Economist has a great response to Lomborg’s critics.