So lf I read this article it is all about Trump's lies and nothing about Clinton's lies. Or maybe I missed something...Clinton never lies or you just know that she and Bill never tell the truth so why keep saying they lied again.....it is clear to folks who have common sense that NYT is biased and is promoting their own agenda to support whatever the Democrats want. Your elite attitude as the journalistic king of the hill is a joke really. You may be writing for you local readers in NY but you do not represent anyone west of your coast line for sure and your assessment of a lie seems to always be based on your opinion of someone and how they might impact your agenda. When did you rant about the lies coming from BHO? rarely and you hang on to the birther thing like a baby hangs on to a blanket for comfort. What if 10 years form now we find out BHO was born in Kenyon, I'm pretty sure you would deny that too and make up any story to cover up your previous opinions. NYT is not open minded and is totally biased and proves it everyday they still publish.
Fascinating that both camps feel The New York Times is in the tank for the other side. This is knee jerk for the Republicans of course, but Clinton supporters also feel this way thanks to the construction of "false balance."
Not a big fan of all the Public Editor columns, but here she is right down the middle and right on spot. You can and should as a reporter continually "fact check" and note whether a statement is true or false. You do this dispassionately. You save the "lie" for clear cases such as this -- else you lose the power of the word. Anyone who follows Times coverage really can't say Trump's inaccuracies and blatant bending and breaking of the truth has not been noted. The paper has done some great reporting on both sides.
Not a big fan of all the Public Editor columns, but here she is right down the middle and right on spot. You can and should as a reporter continually "fact check" and note whether a statement is true or false. You do this dispassionately. You save the "lie" for clear cases such as this -- else you lose the power of the word. Anyone who follows Times coverage really can't say Trump's inaccuracies and blatant bending and breaking of the truth has not been noted. The paper has done some great reporting on both sides.
1
What happened to calling a lie a lie? Trump lied his way through the debate, even when called out, Trump continued to lie, ignoring facts and his own words. I expected a front page headline: TRUMP LIES LIKE A RUG. Public Editor: Please explain to me why the NYT keeps giving Trump a pass on his habitual lying? Even when the NYT has a major article on Trump lying, the article is buried in the back pages, not front page. Surely the fact that a lying fraud is the Republican candidate for President is front page news. Not something to be swept under the rug, not someone to be treated with kid gloves.
2
That the Times waited years to specifically call out the birther lie as a lie, in headline or reporting text, is a disgrace to the paper and a disservice to the country. Continuing to use euphemisms like "whoppers" or "stretching the truth" or "alleged" to describe Trump's flat-out factually wrong statements can only be seen as a joke.
Your clinging desperately to 20th century rubrics about what is and is not palatable in a headline is part of why the newspaper, and industry, is in such trouble. Your sheepish move forward could very well be too little, too late. As your own Krugman began his column yesterday: "If Donald Trump becomes president, the news media will bear a large share of the blame."
Your clinging desperately to 20th century rubrics about what is and is not palatable in a headline is part of why the newspaper, and industry, is in such trouble. Your sheepish move forward could very well be too little, too late. As your own Krugman began his column yesterday: "If Donald Trump becomes president, the news media will bear a large share of the blame."
Don't pat yourself on the back. Calling an egregious, self-serving lie (like Trump's attempt to disavow his own birtherism) a "lie", is not really anything to crow about.
You seem far more invested in "appearing" fair, than actually being truthful.
Sorry, call 'em as I see 'em.
You seem far more invested in "appearing" fair, than actually being truthful.
Sorry, call 'em as I see 'em.
6
That there is so much hand wringing at the Times over finally calling one of Trump's statements a lie is all the proof you need of how badly they have botched their coverage of this election so far.
6
The only real example Ms. Spayd offers of Trump's lying is his "birther" campaign, which was so preposterous and laughable that only people willing to be duped could be. But the list of Trump's lies is much, much longer and many of those lies are just as serious as Trump's birtherism.
In Trump's case, simply pointing out his lies is insufficient. The man is a serial liar. Individual lies are one thing, but Trump lives in a different world from the stretchers of truth and spinners of fact. People need to know that. Unfortunately, the people most in need are, in all likelihood, unreachable. Still, the Times and other responsible news organizations need to try.
In Trump's case, simply pointing out his lies is insufficient. The man is a serial liar. Individual lies are one thing, but Trump lives in a different world from the stretchers of truth and spinners of fact. People need to know that. Unfortunately, the people most in need are, in all likelihood, unreachable. Still, the Times and other responsible news organizations need to try.
5
Nothing Donald Trump says can be accepted without verification. Does he know he's lying? Almost certainly yes and, if he doesn't know, it's because he doesn't care. Trump has made it clear that he believes the "truth" is whatever he wants or needs it to be.
Trump does not just lie. He is a serial, compulsive liar. He is not like other major party presidential candidates. The New York Times has a responsibility to not print information it knows to be untrue without pointing out that fact. President Obama's birthplace was not questionable. Trump's statements about the issue were appalling. Did the Times even once call him a liar when reporting about his "birther" statements.
It would be unfortunate if the New York Times became partisan in a way that made it impossible to report the news objectively (see Fox News). However, it would be worse if the Times allowed itself to be manipulated by a serial liar like Trump, because the paper is afraid it will be called partisan. Face it, the Right already considers the Times partisan, so their opinion, not based on fact, can be ignored. However, objective reporting of Donald Trump can reach only one conclusion -- he is a liar, who lies constantly, knowingly, without regard for the truth.
The Times should use the words "lie" and "liar" when they apply.
Trump does not just lie. He is a serial, compulsive liar. He is not like other major party presidential candidates. The New York Times has a responsibility to not print information it knows to be untrue without pointing out that fact. President Obama's birthplace was not questionable. Trump's statements about the issue were appalling. Did the Times even once call him a liar when reporting about his "birther" statements.
It would be unfortunate if the New York Times became partisan in a way that made it impossible to report the news objectively (see Fox News). However, it would be worse if the Times allowed itself to be manipulated by a serial liar like Trump, because the paper is afraid it will be called partisan. Face it, the Right already considers the Times partisan, so their opinion, not based on fact, can be ignored. However, objective reporting of Donald Trump can reach only one conclusion -- he is a liar, who lies constantly, knowingly, without regard for the truth.
The Times should use the words "lie" and "liar" when they apply.
5
So you shouldn't call a lie a lie, "however factually accurate", because it "feels partisan"? You are saying then that it is better to not write truthfully because it might hurt the feelings of one party. Wow. Just wow. This is nothing but justification for shoddy false equivalency journalism - a true profile in cowardice.
7
Use of "the big lie" depends on the reluctant of most people to call it that while it spreads. And then to have the lie repeated in the process of refuting it. Far better to label it as such on its first and subsequent appearances.
2
Thou shall not bear false witness.
Pretty simple concept. Accepted by most religions as a moral imperative.
Accepted by agnostics and atheists as appropriate behavior.
Punished by all the states and the federal government when uttered under oath.
Why is it acceptable by the people from anyone running for office, no less the Presidency of the United States?
Pretty simple concept. Accepted by most religions as a moral imperative.
Accepted by agnostics and atheists as appropriate behavior.
Punished by all the states and the federal government when uttered under oath.
Why is it acceptable by the people from anyone running for office, no less the Presidency of the United States?
3
Oh, I know: In those borderline cases where nobody’s policing any frivolous disputes, and yet where the facts are still not demonstrably clear, the NYT could stay on the safe side by pointing out that Donald Trump may or may not be lying.
You seem to disagree on everything with your own article “The Truth About ‘False Balance’”(Sep.10,2016).
3
Yes, this is her way of backtracking, but without being accountable. It's not working.
1
So now it takes a Google search engine to find the Public Editor articles.
What is the matter Ms. Spayd, do you think hiding the link to the Public Editor on the online editorial pages would not stop the critcism?
Instead of disrepecing your readers and cowering in fear, have some courage and put the link back.
What is the matter Ms. Spayd, do you think hiding the link to the Public Editor on the online editorial pages would not stop the critcism?
Instead of disrepecing your readers and cowering in fear, have some courage and put the link back.
2
There is the link to the Public Editor at the bottom of the front page.
I think you're off base here - the links rotate, there's no connection to recent criticism of the column.
Go to opinion oage, then scroll all the way to the bottom, in the left hand margin, click on Public Editor. Her page, diminished from Ms. Sullivan's tenure, when it had links to all previous PE's writings, plus other important links, like "Assuring Our Credibility," can be found, such as it is.
1
I disagree with the premise of this article. A journalist has an obligation to present the facts. When a candidate for the highest office in the nation spouts off outrageous lies, it is a journalist's responsibility to point out that the candidate is lying. That is not biased reporting, it is responsible journalism.
4
Dear debate team,
Hillary would do well to make it clear that of the two candidates she is the only adult. Donald Trump is a boy. A spoiled little boy who has tantrums and tells exaggerated stories for his own benefit.
Hillary would do well to make it clear that of the two candidates she is the only adult. Donald Trump is a boy. A spoiled little boy who has tantrums and tells exaggerated stories for his own benefit.
1
This should not be so difficult NY Times. Reporters don't even need to call Trump a liar. Anytime he offers up a lie, follow his statement with a parenthetical statement or a comic strip speech balloon.
For instance, Trump bleats about the US having the highest tax rates of any country. (Trump pays little or no taxes, so his statement is obviously false.)
It's not standard practice, but I think it might be a fun exercise for the next several weeks. Any ideas about which comic strip character is right for putting Donald in his place?
For instance, Trump bleats about the US having the highest tax rates of any country. (Trump pays little or no taxes, so his statement is obviously false.)
It's not standard practice, but I think it might be a fun exercise for the next several weeks. Any ideas about which comic strip character is right for putting Donald in his place?
1
3
Just a FEW incontrovertible Trump lies, even by the NYT strict definition:
Muslims celebrating in NJ as the towers went down
Trump had a letter from the NFL about the debates
He was against the war in Iraq
Said he never called for profiling of Muslims
He "finished" the birther lie
There is "no system" to vet refugees
He never met Putin
or: He DID meet Putin [one of them must be a lie--he's said both]
He gave 6 million to vet charities
ISIS controls the oil in Libya
Unemployment rate is 42 %
etc etc
Hillary Clinton started the birther lie
Clinton wants to repeal the second amendment
Muslims celebrating in NJ as the towers went down
Trump had a letter from the NFL about the debates
He was against the war in Iraq
Said he never called for profiling of Muslims
He "finished" the birther lie
There is "no system" to vet refugees
He never met Putin
or: He DID meet Putin [one of them must be a lie--he's said both]
He gave 6 million to vet charities
ISIS controls the oil in Libya
Unemployment rate is 42 %
etc etc
Hillary Clinton started the birther lie
Clinton wants to repeal the second amendment
3
I can agree with the three conditions for use of the word "lie" put forth by editor Carolyn Ryan, as I expect most Democrats might be as well. Unfortunately the gap may be only in Mr. Trump's campaign and the current GOP in general, where they seem to insist that their demonstrable lies are either factually true or simply misunderstood. My guess is that held to Ms. Ryan's standard, most of the "lies" attributed to Secretary Clinton by the GOP would fall away as nothing while Trump's lies would be laid bare for all to see.
"When to Call a Lie a Lie"?
Easy, when it's a lie.
Easy, when it's a lie.
15
You think the Times should "use this term rarely." I think the Times should use the term when it applies. As it happens, you've had good reason to use it a lot this season. If not you, than who?
-Forget closing the barn door after the horse is gone. You're sanding and painting the door and discussing paint color harmonies here.
-Forget closing the barn door after the horse is gone. You're sanding and painting the door and discussing paint color harmonies here.
16
The problem in this election cycle is certainly not the use of the word "lie" in this context. One ENORMOUS problem, pointed out by Krugman today and by a smattering of recent articles elsewhere (e.g. Salon) is that the very best journalists fail find fault with many Clinton non-scandals (emails, Benghazi, etc) while failing to dissect many egregious acts of Trump. And how about analyzing the policy positions of each candidate carefully. That will fill articles on Clinton between now and election day. You will run out of things to say about Trump more quickly, but if Trump is failing to take positions on important issues, isn't it the job of journalists everywhere to point out this lack of substance? Come on, journalists. You hold the keys to whether we live in a democracy or not. Dare to think and to report on matters of substance, for a change.
7
Liz Spayd here offers a truly abominable standard for journalists: "however factually accurate" something is, reporters should generally avoid reporting it if "feels partisan." Feelings, not facts, should determine what goes into the news section of the NYTimes? This is the essence, not of journalism, but of propaganda. Shame on you Liz Spayd!
13
I recall responding to Margaret Sullivan about Dean Baquet embracing and making "truthiness" de facto Times policy. At least then, I never doubted that the office of the Public Editor did not endorse truthiness. Now that is no longer so. And I am sad to have to say that.
2
Dear Ms. Spayd--
It is never wrong to call a lie when it comes past. Indeed, it's immoral for a news source to avoid that call. People go to newspapers for facts--critical facts. We want to know what's true--is climate change real? Who won the British elections? Are pipe lines causing ecologial damage? Are they a health threat?
Which of the candidates is lying? About what? Is there a pattern?
You act as though news papers are now merely the creators of clevery, tricky little intellectual puzzles--a sort of sudoku game of data., from which the reader, if he or she is very, very clever, may weasel out the actual implications of the cautious, ambiguous details presented.
This is baloney. Your job is to provide facts, including facts like "The following things said by Mr. Trump are lies or are just plain wrong." We need to know that. We may never know that if our blasted news sources are too "correct" and too unwilling to risk the appearance of bias to tell us scalding, uncomfortable truths. So--get over it. Tell us truth when you see truth--and call out the lies when you see them. Truth is not biased, it's just truth.
It is never wrong to call a lie when it comes past. Indeed, it's immoral for a news source to avoid that call. People go to newspapers for facts--critical facts. We want to know what's true--is climate change real? Who won the British elections? Are pipe lines causing ecologial damage? Are they a health threat?
Which of the candidates is lying? About what? Is there a pattern?
You act as though news papers are now merely the creators of clevery, tricky little intellectual puzzles--a sort of sudoku game of data., from which the reader, if he or she is very, very clever, may weasel out the actual implications of the cautious, ambiguous details presented.
This is baloney. Your job is to provide facts, including facts like "The following things said by Mr. Trump are lies or are just plain wrong." We need to know that. We may never know that if our blasted news sources are too "correct" and too unwilling to risk the appearance of bias to tell us scalding, uncomfortable truths. So--get over it. Tell us truth when you see truth--and call out the lies when you see them. Truth is not biased, it's just truth.
10
I think what annoys me the most about this column is that at heart, it's really another defense of the false-equivalency editing - glorified press-release journalism - that has been NYT practice throughout this election cycle.
Ms. Spayd is correct - language does have meaning, and is parsed carefully by political operatives for partisan purpose, often using falsehoods and Truthiness to misrepresent opponents and aggrandize themselves. TNYT should have the courage to call a spade a spade regularly. Lies are lies, and needn't be Ionesco - absurd to merit the use of the term. Because language indeed does have meaning.
Call lies on both sides, and abandon false equivalency. Let the truth speak for itself. THAT is public service reporting that I expect from TNYT.
Ms. Spayd is correct - language does have meaning, and is parsed carefully by political operatives for partisan purpose, often using falsehoods and Truthiness to misrepresent opponents and aggrandize themselves. TNYT should have the courage to call a spade a spade regularly. Lies are lies, and needn't be Ionesco - absurd to merit the use of the term. Because language indeed does have meaning.
Call lies on both sides, and abandon false equivalency. Let the truth speak for itself. THAT is public service reporting that I expect from TNYT.
12
It seems pretty clear that for the New York Times, the time to call a lie a lie is only when it is not spoken by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
Otherwise they might have called out Hillary when she blamed the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens on "inflammatory material posted on the internet" even though she e-mailed daughter Chelsea that same night saying he was killed by "an Al Queda-like group". She also told the Egyptian Prime Minister that she knew the attack had nothing to do with the film yet told the grieving parents that the deaths were caused by "an awful internet video".
But of course Hillary also claimed she had "turned over everything I was obligated to turn over" from her e-mail server but the FBI discovered several thousand additional work related e-mails. And to top it off she lied about her lies declaring on National TV that FBI "Director Comey said "my answers were truthful and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people" a claim the Washington Post fact checker rated "four Pinocchio's.
But since the New York Times has spent the last eight years covering for Barack "if you like your Health Insurance and Doctor , you can keep them" Obama despite this proven lie so it is no surprise that you also cover for Hillary.
The irony is that the deceitfulness and bias of the National Media has paved the way for Donald Trump. The people know the media's bias and no longer believe them even on the occasions when they print truth.
Otherwise they might have called out Hillary when she blamed the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens on "inflammatory material posted on the internet" even though she e-mailed daughter Chelsea that same night saying he was killed by "an Al Queda-like group". She also told the Egyptian Prime Minister that she knew the attack had nothing to do with the film yet told the grieving parents that the deaths were caused by "an awful internet video".
But of course Hillary also claimed she had "turned over everything I was obligated to turn over" from her e-mail server but the FBI discovered several thousand additional work related e-mails. And to top it off she lied about her lies declaring on National TV that FBI "Director Comey said "my answers were truthful and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people" a claim the Washington Post fact checker rated "four Pinocchio's.
But since the New York Times has spent the last eight years covering for Barack "if you like your Health Insurance and Doctor , you can keep them" Obama despite this proven lie so it is no surprise that you also cover for Hillary.
The irony is that the deceitfulness and bias of the National Media has paved the way for Donald Trump. The people know the media's bias and no longer believe them even on the occasions when they print truth.
1
Dear NY Times: do not agonize too much over Trump lies.
Bigots, corrupt businessmen, and pretenders speak the language of lies. If you are all three, plus a pathological liar and demagogue lusting for power, you are Trump. Trump is incapable of telling the truth except, for example, if asked:
Do you like milk in your coffee?
How many wives have you had?
Are you running for President?
Do you have a daughter named Tiffany?
There is not much else that would not be skewed to a lie -
-
Bigots, corrupt businessmen, and pretenders speak the language of lies. If you are all three, plus a pathological liar and demagogue lusting for power, you are Trump. Trump is incapable of telling the truth except, for example, if asked:
Do you like milk in your coffee?
How many wives have you had?
Are you running for President?
Do you have a daughter named Tiffany?
There is not much else that would not be skewed to a lie -
-
Hillary is liar par excellence...
It is essential that reporters/editors point out falsehoods, false statements. It's news. If the falsehood is judged to be deliberate, then call it a lie. It's news.
3
The Times doesn't need to call Trump a liar. There were millions of people the reporter could have called who would have said it for you -- in spades. Or your reporter could have directly asked Trump if he'd been lying all these years and reported his answer/evasion/whatever.
1
Finally. the public editor's eyes are opened.Let's hope she stays awake.
2
Trumps lies because it works for him, has worked for him in the past and because he has not suffered any noticeable damage to his brand for having done so. Because he is essentially amoral, being called a liar has no impact on his self-respect and certainly does not cause him to question whether or not he's doing something wrong. The end (winning) justifies the means. Dignity, compassion, honesty, respect, fairness, integrity - which might be points on a normal person's moral compass are useless concepts to Trump. So, while I am fully in favor of The Times using the word "lie" when the shoe fits (and that applies to everyone covered in the news), it would be foolish to think using the term will change Trump's behavior or cause his supporters to question their man - because the candidate and his supporters simply don't care about his truthfulness. Hillary's honesty is another matter altogether. When that's the topic, they become quite fervent. Sanctimonious, in fact. But these are just words like the term under discussion: lie. In this campaign season it seems a lie isn't a discreet event and an intentional attempt to deceive. That's an outdated definition. Lying is what the candidate I don't support does all the time. Quite recently I thought it was just the GOP that was in a death spiral. I increasingly worry it is our entire political culture. That's the truth.
4
Mr. Trump responds to a question about what he thought about topic A. Mr. Trump then voices his stand on that topic. Later on, when he is challenged about his stand on Topic A, he denies that he had ever articulated that position. However, there is video evidence of him taking that position. He is presented with that evidence, yet he still denies it.
How does that not make him a liar and his denial a lie? If such denials of his can't be called a lie by the media, then what should they be called? "Hallucinations"? "Statements that don't comport with verifiable evidence to the contrary"?
To my mind, it is time for the media to say "Another lie was made by Trump today when he said "X". And, by the way, here is the evidence that "X" is not true. Calling out untruths that can be substantiated by verifiable facts is not editorializing. By reporting the news along with the appropriate background FACTS it enables the reader then interpret and make a value judgment about what the person did or did not say. Just reporting what is said without contextual background is not reporting events, it is just transcribing events. Transcriptional journalism had led to the rise of fact free politicians such as Trump. It is time for this type of journalism to stop.
How does that not make him a liar and his denial a lie? If such denials of his can't be called a lie by the media, then what should they be called? "Hallucinations"? "Statements that don't comport with verifiable evidence to the contrary"?
To my mind, it is time for the media to say "Another lie was made by Trump today when he said "X". And, by the way, here is the evidence that "X" is not true. Calling out untruths that can be substantiated by verifiable facts is not editorializing. By reporting the news along with the appropriate background FACTS it enables the reader then interpret and make a value judgment about what the person did or did not say. Just reporting what is said without contextual background is not reporting events, it is just transcribing events. Transcriptional journalism had led to the rise of fact free politicians such as Trump. It is time for this type of journalism to stop.
11
I lost a great deal of faith in the Times after the editor's interview on NPR.
Trump "lied" on the birther issue. Well, yeah. But, Clinton didn't lie regarding various issues surrounding the email, most notably the FBI clearing her. That was just normal politician speech.
If the NY Times choses to use the term "liar" or "liar", let's have some consistency.
Trump "lied" on the birther issue. Well, yeah. But, Clinton didn't lie regarding various issues surrounding the email, most notably the FBI clearing her. That was just normal politician speech.
If the NY Times choses to use the term "liar" or "liar", let's have some consistency.
3
Trump/Drumpf has had such success because his LIES were not called out as LIES. Trump/Drumpf seems incapable of telling the truth, there always seems to be a LIE lurking somewhere in almost every statement he makes. It is not 'bias' to identify the LIES the Trump/Drumpf constantly tells.
1
"He sort of crossed a little bit of a line..."
That was Dean Baquet speaking on NPR's Morning Edition today explaining why The Times is now using the word "lie" with Donald Trump. "A little bit of a line"? And what was that line? His "birther" claims.
So for months and months, Trump has been lying through his teeth. But only now has the executive editor of The Times decided it's OK to tell readers that Trump "lies"?
The Times' and Mr. Baquet's decision to finally call Trump a liar is far, far too late. A lie is a lie. Refusing to tell readers that Trump lies is an abdication of the responsibility of the press.
A "little bit of a line", indeed!
That was Dean Baquet speaking on NPR's Morning Edition today explaining why The Times is now using the word "lie" with Donald Trump. "A little bit of a line"? And what was that line? His "birther" claims.
So for months and months, Trump has been lying through his teeth. But only now has the executive editor of The Times decided it's OK to tell readers that Trump "lies"?
The Times' and Mr. Baquet's decision to finally call Trump a liar is far, far too late. A lie is a lie. Refusing to tell readers that Trump lies is an abdication of the responsibility of the press.
A "little bit of a line", indeed!
7
On point, Sean; Fifty days before the election, and having squandered months of dalliance with the master con artist of all time, a lie is a lie, maybe? The ineptness, as well as their fascination with the Donald, the news media, (unwittingly?), has whittled the 20 point lead Mrs.Clinton had , down to 6 point or less. Mission Accomplished by the con artist and the GOP, with a little help from the Fourth Estate. There is NO comparison between the lady's admitted self-inflicting errors, and those of the con man and his seditious remarks. Fair and Balanced reporting, indeed!
4
"If you believe it to be true then it's not a lie."
--George Costanza
--George Costanza
1
I think that Mr. Trump is afflicted by the belief that his lies, when repeated so often, will be received by the Hoi Polloi as the Truth writ large."
It does seem to be working that way, doesn't it?
It does seem to be working that way, doesn't it?
9
Trump evidently has taken Karl Rove's advice:
"Republicans make up our own reality."
As Chris Hayes has said: "Where does it stop?
Soon Trump will be saying he is the first woman Presidential Candidate."
A lie is a lie is a lie.
"Republicans make up our own reality."
As Chris Hayes has said: "Where does it stop?
Soon Trump will be saying he is the first woman Presidential Candidate."
A lie is a lie is a lie.
14
I'm not convinced Trump believes the whoppers coming out of his mouth, in which case they are not technically lies. But this would mean he is mentally unbalanced.
8
Ok, so a lie is only reported as a lie when it is repeated and when it is obviously intended to deceive. NYT public editor, you are very late to the game. Here is a "starter list" for you (some lies are compound):
1. Climate change is not real. Climate change is a Chinese plot. Climate change was not caused by burning fossil fuel.
2. "I give millions to charity."
3. "Tax cuts to the wealthiest will make the economy grow."
4. "Crime is increasing"
5. "Clinton is the founder of ISIS".
etc. etc.
Please start. Your newspaper is already over a year late.
1. Climate change is not real. Climate change is a Chinese plot. Climate change was not caused by burning fossil fuel.
2. "I give millions to charity."
3. "Tax cuts to the wealthiest will make the economy grow."
4. "Crime is increasing"
5. "Clinton is the founder of ISIS".
etc. etc.
Please start. Your newspaper is already over a year late.
28
Not sure what bothers me more: That Trump lies so often, or that truth no longer seems to matter.
21
The Republican party is a failed state and Donald Trump is it's warlord. If he wins the presidency and becomes America's warlord, future historians will cite the columns of Liz Spayd to document the institutional failure of the press that enabled this bizarre catastrophe to come about.
10
A good entry in the fact vs. opinion debacle.
A fact can be independently verified; everyone should be able to agree upon a fact. We can all watch the sun rise in the East. We can all read a CBO report and agree: "Yes, that is what CBO reported."
An opinion is a claim or conclusion, ideally based on a set of facts. It is a subjective view of reality. Even when people agree on the facts, they may arrive at different conclusions or recommend different courses of action. While we can all agree CBO reported that the Bush tax cuts added to the deficit and debt, we can disagree with their conclusion.
A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive. When Trump says he believes Obama was not born in the U.S., that is an opinion without factual support. It is not a lie. But a claim like that without factual support should devastate the credibility of a public figure.
That is the problem we face. A large portion of the electorate wants to believe Obama was not born here, as it plays to their racist leanings. So they don't bother to look at the evidence. We have a big portion of the electorate ruled by emotion, not reason.
A fact can be independently verified; everyone should be able to agree upon a fact. We can all watch the sun rise in the East. We can all read a CBO report and agree: "Yes, that is what CBO reported."
An opinion is a claim or conclusion, ideally based on a set of facts. It is a subjective view of reality. Even when people agree on the facts, they may arrive at different conclusions or recommend different courses of action. While we can all agree CBO reported that the Bush tax cuts added to the deficit and debt, we can disagree with their conclusion.
A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive. When Trump says he believes Obama was not born in the U.S., that is an opinion without factual support. It is not a lie. But a claim like that without factual support should devastate the credibility of a public figure.
That is the problem we face. A large portion of the electorate wants to believe Obama was not born here, as it plays to their racist leanings. So they don't bother to look at the evidence. We have a big portion of the electorate ruled by emotion, not reason.
6
Voters have always been guided more by emotion than reason, in my opinion. That goes for PhDs and grade school drop-outs, men, women, and every stripe of political philosophy or party affiliation, in my opinion. Lots of people like to think they are guided by reason (and a completely objective analysis and evaluation of all relevant history, facts and the intricacies of the important issues of the day.) But most people are not. They don't have the time or the inclination. If you do, great. To your point however, when you repeatedly state an "opinion" that you refuse to attempt to substantiate in order to further a destructive agenda against an opponent - you are doing something worse than lying. You are hiding behind an opinion so that you can try to weasel out of any responsibility for the damage your expressed opinion has caused if and when that opinion is eventually debunked. Mr. Trump is both a weasel and a liar - and he survives and flourishes not because we are collectively deficient in reason, but because we as a society have become so accustomed to hearing spin and outright lies that we are no longer outraged when a pandering public figure insults our common sense and intelligence by peddling nonsense disguised as opinion or rumor or something that's simply being retweeted.
1
I agree with critics of the NY Times policy.
It is clear that Donald Trump is a highly flawed candidate. His rhetoric is often intentionally inflammatory. An example was his use of the word "rapist" in describing illegal immigrants.
But it isi also true that opinions should be labeled as such, and the front page should be devoted to reporting the "facts" insofar as they are knowable, with opinion labeled as such, and given less prominence.
The problem is that it is often difficult to tell where "misleading" assertions stop and actual lies begin.
Let me give an example. The rhetoric of liberals often characterizes conservatives as "climate change deniers." But look more deeply and you find that many of these "deniers" are simply saying that fighting climate is less important now than providing jobs for workers.
How can that be? Well, maybe climate change, although real, is only one aspect of a much larger problem.
That problem is population growth. It can be argued that population growth in India, Pakistan and sub-Saharan Africa not only decreases living standards, but also shortens lives of billions of people. Many suffer from intermittent starvation.
Thus the poorest of the world suffer from another problem more pressing than climate change---outright starvation.
Why is it that liberals don't see that as a problem? The population of California has almost quadrupled since 1950.
One can argue that's the reason not just for global warming but rampant poverty.
It is clear that Donald Trump is a highly flawed candidate. His rhetoric is often intentionally inflammatory. An example was his use of the word "rapist" in describing illegal immigrants.
But it isi also true that opinions should be labeled as such, and the front page should be devoted to reporting the "facts" insofar as they are knowable, with opinion labeled as such, and given less prominence.
The problem is that it is often difficult to tell where "misleading" assertions stop and actual lies begin.
Let me give an example. The rhetoric of liberals often characterizes conservatives as "climate change deniers." But look more deeply and you find that many of these "deniers" are simply saying that fighting climate is less important now than providing jobs for workers.
How can that be? Well, maybe climate change, although real, is only one aspect of a much larger problem.
That problem is population growth. It can be argued that population growth in India, Pakistan and sub-Saharan Africa not only decreases living standards, but also shortens lives of billions of people. Many suffer from intermittent starvation.
Thus the poorest of the world suffer from another problem more pressing than climate change---outright starvation.
Why is it that liberals don't see that as a problem? The population of California has almost quadrupled since 1950.
One can argue that's the reason not just for global warming but rampant poverty.
When Kellyanne was questioned as to whether Donald Trump would show his IRS audit letter, she stumbled, then asked the interviewer if her was calling Mr. Trump a liar....wait, what??? Did anyone pick this up?? No! When Mr. Trump has been calling for months that the fourth estate is in his cross hairs does anyone say anything? No! You, the times seem to be ok with a presidential candidate threatening the very freedoms that keep the truth alive. Your demise and that of this country will be because you, the fourth estate, refuses to lift your heads out of the sand while Rome burns.
9
If Trump is saying he got the idea of Obama not being born in the US came from Clinton, isn't he praising her? "One of her staffers suggested that it might be possible that Obama wasn't born in the US? WOW! I trust her so much, that I am going to base my whole campaign on what she says."
4
When an important political candidate lies, that is news, no matter how often it happens, it should be news every single time.
19
Lie implies intent...but it is clear that one candidate makes statements that are demonstrably not true and in the search for truth this must be pointed out. We have too many examples to name but Chinese climate change hoax is one. And there is a place for explaining to whom and why these lies are told, add some polling data, some examples of misinformation driving the 'marketing' of politics, and you are on clear path forward to the truth. And while not all talking, tweeting is news, it is key to point out the statistics of the number of demonstrably untrue statements as this too is part of the picture, of a world view where lies sell. And when it's clearly a projection or intentional, call it a lie and point out that this is wrong, has consequences, requires greater vigilance!
3
"I think The Times should use this term rarely." says the author.
The Times calls Trump a liar five years after the fact. The Times gets no Bravos on that score.
Which is exactly why we have presidential candidates freely couching the truth and mouthing lies with such audacity and over such an extremely long period of time. Call them out early and often and we will get less Trump style candidates in our political sphere.
Why should a common voter think or say "lie" when outfits like the Times, in the business of editorializing, cannot gather the gumption the call a spade a spade.
The Times calls Trump a liar five years after the fact. The Times gets no Bravos on that score.
Which is exactly why we have presidential candidates freely couching the truth and mouthing lies with such audacity and over such an extremely long period of time. Call them out early and often and we will get less Trump style candidates in our political sphere.
Why should a common voter think or say "lie" when outfits like the Times, in the business of editorializing, cannot gather the gumption the call a spade a spade.
22
"That said, I think The Times should use this term rarely."
No. The Times should use this word whenever justified. If you have a quota of one use of "lie" per week, then a politician telling 20 lies a week will get a free pass on 19 of them.
For instance, the claim of the Trump campaign that the Clinton campaign had no policy on child care, and never would, was described by the Times as "stretching the truth". In fact, it was a lie, by the standards you suggest here. If you need to use the word frequently to describe the news as it actually is, go ahead.
No. The Times should use this word whenever justified. If you have a quota of one use of "lie" per week, then a politician telling 20 lies a week will get a free pass on 19 of them.
For instance, the claim of the Trump campaign that the Clinton campaign had no policy on child care, and never would, was described by the Times as "stretching the truth". In fact, it was a lie, by the standards you suggest here. If you need to use the word frequently to describe the news as it actually is, go ahead.
33
We need to get past the whole false equivalency concept. When one of the candidates makes up outrageous lies out of whole-cloth, there is really no point in treating the lie and the "other side" as equivalent. One side is simply true and the other is a lie. Sick and tired of the professional haters and habitual liars being treated as legitimate in a "two sides to every story" world!
19
I'm probably uncharitable, but I find this piece to be less about when to use the term "lie" and more about a bit of window dressing attempting to pretty the NY Times' generally poor showing in its handling of Trump.
18
I agree with you, John. I'd go further, that this is an extension of Spayd's appalling misunderstanding of false equivalence and false balance, and the fact that she confuses the two concepts.
1
If anyone on earth should use words accurately, it's a newspaper, and when the word "lie" is used correctly, it is not editorializing, it's the truth.
The sun rises in the east, and it is not editorializing to make that flat statement. On the contrary, saying "most people think that the sun rises in the east" splits the reporting away from reality so thoroughly that it becomes essentially false.
It's the same with demonstrably-true lies. Using weasel words just decreases the accuracy of the reporting.
As for the idea that the word "lie" is too loaded, well - life is hard, so get used to it. The Times should not have to provide a safe space and trigger warnings for readers who can't handle the truth.
The sun rises in the east, and it is not editorializing to make that flat statement. On the contrary, saying "most people think that the sun rises in the east" splits the reporting away from reality so thoroughly that it becomes essentially false.
It's the same with demonstrably-true lies. Using weasel words just decreases the accuracy of the reporting.
As for the idea that the word "lie" is too loaded, well - life is hard, so get used to it. The Times should not have to provide a safe space and trigger warnings for readers who can't handle the truth.
21
If the media had called out Mr. Trump on his lies during the primaries we wouldn't be in the situation where a morally bankrupt lying businessman actually has a chance to win the presidency. Even today I rarely see the paper that prints all the news that is fit to print report honestly on Mr. Trump or at least neglecting to report his scandals such as his embezzlement over his charity as compared to Hillary's emails.
12
Trump has been telling this one for EIGHT YEARS and you only now could finally bring yourself to call it a lie?
Go on and lecture the decent people some more about how unreasonable we are for accusing you of "false balance." Then go run another story about the "ongoing questions" about Clinton using the wrong email account.
Stop helping this man. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP.
Go on and lecture the decent people some more about how unreasonable we are for accusing you of "false balance." Then go run another story about the "ongoing questions" about Clinton using the wrong email account.
Stop helping this man. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP.
25
"Lie" is certainly a loaded word, and there are many varieties of prevarication, but reporters and editors have a responsibility to call a thing what it is. And in this and so many other cases, Trump lies without shame. I hope this is not the last time The Times calls him out.
8
Trump's excuse that he can't release his tax returns because they are being audited isn't a lie, it's an non sequitur. If he said he can't release his tax returns because the IRS won't allow it, that would be a lie. But he could just as well have said he can't release his tax returns because the moon is in the Seventh House. His reasoning has nothing to do with reality in this situation as in every other.
4
But a news talking head flummoxed Kellyanne Conway by asking her if Trump would produce his audit letter. She stumbled before asking "are you saying he's a liar?" Well, as Bill Parcells said: "You are what your record says you are," so yes. But this is another example of the abysmal absence of skepticism in journalism these days.
Old journalism joke: Editor says to reporter, "your mother says she lives you. Check it out." These days: "Your mother says she's made out of mozzarella cheese." Reporter: "Can I make pizza?"
Old journalism joke: Editor says to reporter, "your mother says she lives you. Check it out." These days: "Your mother says she's made out of mozzarella cheese." Reporter: "Can I make pizza?"
1
I don't get why the word is so troublesome. It's a noun. A lie is demonstrable, and a lie should be called what it is, a lie. We have no problem using the word "fact", or saying, "That is a fact", or "that is the truth", so why is it so difficult to say the opposite. The difficulty in with the stuff in between the "fact" and the "lie", which is spin, rationalizations, justifications, incomplete stories.
But a lie is a lie is a lie. Call it what it is, when it is, in fact, a lie.
But a lie is a lie is a lie. Call it what it is, when it is, in fact, a lie.
5
Spayd, you're telling Times readers "You can't handle the truth!" Thanks for the vote of confidence.
10
Why does it matter if Trump "knows" if it's a lie or not? A provable lie is a lie, period. If Trump is unaware something is a lie, he needs psychiatric help, not the office of the Presidency.
3
If Trump says "the earth is flat", will the Times say "opinions differ?" What will it take for you to draw the line? What do you care "what it sounds like"? Aren't you in the business of truth?
8
Yes, The NY Times will ALWAYS say "opinions differ" and will present FALSE EQUIVALENCY instead of the truth. Media loves to hedge and lie.
1
Liz, you are so late to the game. You could have been calling Trump on every demonstrable lie all along. True lies. Obvious lies. Provable lies. What's your excuse for not doing it? Same with Hillary, although in any contest, Trump would win hands down.
3
If the NY Times is too delicate to call a lie a lie, there is another option.
Quote the man, then state that what he has said is false, and then state the reality.
There, that's how ya do your job.
Quote the man, then state that what he has said is false, and then state the reality.
There, that's how ya do your job.
8
It is not the job of a newspaper to be a "safe space" for conservatives. If something is a lie, call it a lie. If one presidential candidate is a compulsive liar, call him on it. Anything less is the worst form of the political correctness those conservatives claim to abhor.
Do not pat yourself on the back too hard for calling out the birther lie as a lie. It is the lowest hanging fruit-- not only an obvious and egregious lie, but one which will be even more completely irrelevant to public discourse in a matter of months. That is not a courageous act of journalism.
The Times has been repeatedly scooped by one of its major competitors-- I'm sure you know which one I'm referring to. You've been rolled by the right-wing, convinced of Clinton Foundation scandals that aren't, while the few real investigative journalists left are finding the real Trump Foundation scandals that are. They went after Kerry to distract from Bush's draft dodging, and you guys let them do the same thing now. I've recently bought a subscription to that competitor based on its excellent coverage.
This election has one candidate who has been under investigation and scrutiny for decades, and another who has never held public office, refuses to disclose his financial ties to foreign governments, and has been openly courting white nationalists for months. You do not owe it to conservatives' hurt feelings to pull your punches. You are a newspaper. You are journalists. Do your job.
Do not pat yourself on the back too hard for calling out the birther lie as a lie. It is the lowest hanging fruit-- not only an obvious and egregious lie, but one which will be even more completely irrelevant to public discourse in a matter of months. That is not a courageous act of journalism.
The Times has been repeatedly scooped by one of its major competitors-- I'm sure you know which one I'm referring to. You've been rolled by the right-wing, convinced of Clinton Foundation scandals that aren't, while the few real investigative journalists left are finding the real Trump Foundation scandals that are. They went after Kerry to distract from Bush's draft dodging, and you guys let them do the same thing now. I've recently bought a subscription to that competitor based on its excellent coverage.
This election has one candidate who has been under investigation and scrutiny for decades, and another who has never held public office, refuses to disclose his financial ties to foreign governments, and has been openly courting white nationalists for months. You do not owe it to conservatives' hurt feelings to pull your punches. You are a newspaper. You are journalists. Do your job.
14
Claims of Trump's charitable giving has been shown to be a lie by that competitor, but there are still stories out there to be done by journalists. How many small businesses have been not paid by a candidate claiming to be for the little guy? If you repeat what he says at his rallies, you have an obligation to report on the accuracy of such statements. Otherwise, you are using his demagoguery to sell papers.
3
While I would hope that the NYT doesn't find it necessary to use the word "lie" frequently, I don't think you should declare in advance that it should be used rarely. If a public figure chooses to lie frequently, to make provably false statements with intent as you correctly define it, then it's your responsibility to call a lie a lie. If that means you're using the word "lie" often, then so be it.
6
Easy call, whenever Mr. Trump opens his mouth.
2
It's way past time to call a lie a lie. Trump's lies would take up an entire page, and a paper does have a duty to stand up for truth. When a country is in danger or being run by a tyrant, someone has to yell that the emperor has no clothes. If not a newspaper, who? Otherwise, what is the point of journalism.
4
My comment to the editorial staff of the NY Times:
Since when is it your right to shade the truth and present it in a more palatable manner? Do you even realize what you are suggesting here? This is propaganda pure and simple.
Why don't you report the news using words that actually define the situation then let your readership draw their own conclusions.
You seem to be under some elitist illusion this is a sociology experiment. This is real life and a sociopath is pushing his way toward the helm because of your delicate sensibilities and high minded embrace of solipsistic principals.
Since when is it your right to shade the truth and present it in a more palatable manner? Do you even realize what you are suggesting here? This is propaganda pure and simple.
Why don't you report the news using words that actually define the situation then let your readership draw their own conclusions.
You seem to be under some elitist illusion this is a sociology experiment. This is real life and a sociopath is pushing his way toward the helm because of your delicate sensibilities and high minded embrace of solipsistic principals.
9
What you should be doing is apologizing to your readers for failing to fulfill your basic journalistic responsibilities over the past year. A lie is a lie, and should be identified as such. If doubt exists as to the persons intent, perhaps "falsehood" could be used instead. A lie is not an assertion, an opinion, a clarification. How many lies have you printed from Donald Trump in the past year in the name of balance, or "fairness"? It's about time you began identifying them as what they are. Lies.
11
Ms. Spayd,
The Gray Lady has kept her corset so tightly cinched for so long some of the eyelets are showing metal fatigue, microscopic cracks hidden by the fraying threads of the industrial strength laces.
The admission by the editorial staff, that Trump's presence has created a new paradigm for election politics by making once unacceptable language and behavior the main tactic of his campaign, cannot be adequately and honestly addressed by forced adherence to the paper's traditional rules of conduct is best compared to Butch Cassidy's confrontation with the hulking Harvey Logan. Challeged by Logan for the leadership of the Hole in the Wall Gang in the form a knife fight, Butch marches right up to Logan demanding to know the rules of such a contest. Logan declares, "Rules! There ain't no rules in a knife fight!" Whereupon Butch lands a might kick directly into Logan's manhood, doubling him over and dropping him to his knees.
Trump is best dealt with the same way. On his turf, use his tactics. It is time put away the doilies and the tea cups. They're not much use against broken beer bottles when the argument is immediately existential.
The Gray Lady has kept her corset so tightly cinched for so long some of the eyelets are showing metal fatigue, microscopic cracks hidden by the fraying threads of the industrial strength laces.
The admission by the editorial staff, that Trump's presence has created a new paradigm for election politics by making once unacceptable language and behavior the main tactic of his campaign, cannot be adequately and honestly addressed by forced adherence to the paper's traditional rules of conduct is best compared to Butch Cassidy's confrontation with the hulking Harvey Logan. Challeged by Logan for the leadership of the Hole in the Wall Gang in the form a knife fight, Butch marches right up to Logan demanding to know the rules of such a contest. Logan declares, "Rules! There ain't no rules in a knife fight!" Whereupon Butch lands a might kick directly into Logan's manhood, doubling him over and dropping him to his knees.
Trump is best dealt with the same way. On his turf, use his tactics. It is time put away the doilies and the tea cups. They're not much use against broken beer bottles when the argument is immediately existential.
7
As someone put it on Daily Kos:
Even if you do not know if the person actually knows that their statements are false, and hence worthy of the name lie, you should still strongly state that they are false. Trump falsely stated X. Trump falsely accused Clinton/Obama of Y. Trump falsely asserted that the US had Z. Trump outright lied about donating money to charity. See. Sometimes it is clear that Trump is knowingly telling a lie and other times you cannot be sure if he is just stupid or delusional.
Me again:
Whether you can tell or not that it is a "lie," by your standards, you can sure as hell tell that it is a false statement, and the NY Times needs to say so.
Even if you do not know if the person actually knows that their statements are false, and hence worthy of the name lie, you should still strongly state that they are false. Trump falsely stated X. Trump falsely accused Clinton/Obama of Y. Trump falsely asserted that the US had Z. Trump outright lied about donating money to charity. See. Sometimes it is clear that Trump is knowingly telling a lie and other times you cannot be sure if he is just stupid or delusional.
Me again:
Whether you can tell or not that it is a "lie," by your standards, you can sure as hell tell that it is a false statement, and the NY Times needs to say so.
8
You may think lie should be used rarely but what do you do when almost every single utterance out of Trump's mouth is a lie. For the last year at least, the Times has held its nose and pretended that Trump was an ordinary, if somewhat inflammatory, candidate. He was not and is not. Go over to the Atlantic and read what James Fallows has to say every day on Trump's latest outrage. He is a crook in business, a serial adulterer in his personal life, a mentally unstable and utterly ignorant man who is so deluded that he thinks that all he needs to do is say something and the rest of the world will bend over and lick his boots. Every single reporter or columnist who rolled his or her eyes and used euphemisms and pretended that what Hillary has done or said is equivalent should be ashamed of themselves--as should you.
11
Click bait has taken over journalism. So throwing anything out there - anything - gets covered and discussed. "There's something going on with (fill in the blank)...and the press breathlessly covers it. The NYTimes needs to call politicians - the leaders and potential leaders of this country to the carpet for deceiving the populace. An informed voter needs you, the venerable Times, to call out the facts and the lies. He said / she said is not journalism - it's a school-yard fight. Get the news back into the newspaper. If you are ging to publish a lie, then please identify it as such.
2
I was just about to give up on the Times and to give it up. I've read this newspaper for a great many of my 83 years, but enough is quite enough in your coverage of this election. All the coverage is pretty awful--tv is absolutely awful--but it's harder to forgive with the Times. We are in danger of having a disaster of a President, and I blame the insistence on the horse race practice on much of it. The false equivalency is socially irresponsible--all but criminal--and it's long past time that it stopped. Call a spade a spade, and a lie a lie.
8
Ms Spayd,
We very much appreciate your finally waking up to the reality of this election- that one candidate is playing by the normal rules of politics (and being held accountable to them), while the other is playing the "Big Lie" technique (if you tell a lie big enough, and long enough, people will believe it to be true).
It's not only your journalistic duty to tell your readership, in plain english, when a presidential candidate lies so blatantly (and with intention, as you point out), it's in the best interests of your business. I believe you've driven a large portion of your readership away and are finally realizing it. It's refreshing to finally see your coverage reflect that.
However, your clumsy defense of the NYT's previous coverage and your attempt to shout down the valid claims of false equivalence as merely liberal griping come off as out-of-touch and condescending. This column comes off just like Mr Trump's anticipated general election "pivot"- you're finally doing what's expected of you (or of any normal entity in your position) and looking for showers of praise.
I think a more straightforward apology to your readers is in order. Unlike the mainstream media, we don't heap praise and compliments on people who can barely do what's expected of them.
We very much appreciate your finally waking up to the reality of this election- that one candidate is playing by the normal rules of politics (and being held accountable to them), while the other is playing the "Big Lie" technique (if you tell a lie big enough, and long enough, people will believe it to be true).
It's not only your journalistic duty to tell your readership, in plain english, when a presidential candidate lies so blatantly (and with intention, as you point out), it's in the best interests of your business. I believe you've driven a large portion of your readership away and are finally realizing it. It's refreshing to finally see your coverage reflect that.
However, your clumsy defense of the NYT's previous coverage and your attempt to shout down the valid claims of false equivalence as merely liberal griping come off as out-of-touch and condescending. This column comes off just like Mr Trump's anticipated general election "pivot"- you're finally doing what's expected of you (or of any normal entity in your position) and looking for showers of praise.
I think a more straightforward apology to your readers is in order. Unlike the mainstream media, we don't heap praise and compliments on people who can barely do what's expected of them.
35
In stead of an apology how about a genuine realization that the MSM is directly responsible for a dangerous candidate getting within spitting distance of the WH. With that realization a real and concerted effort to expose this person for what he is and what his presidency would mean to millions of Americans from a complete collapse of our economy to possible nuclear war. Apologies are like "thoughts and prayers" during a crisis...nice thought but totally useless.
4
Context is everything. Is an actor *lying* when he calls himself Hamlet? Of course not. Is a singer *lying* when she says she honestly loves me? Of course not. Is a politician *lying* when he uses words to arouse emotions? Of course not. He's performing, he's entertaining, he's playing a role. He's not in court, testifying under oath. The audience has a responsibility to understand that when the curtain falls the performance will end. Every girl understands this about courtship, and every citizen needs to understand this about political campaigning: the speaker's character is the context, and Mr. Trump has shown his character many times.
"Every girl understands this about courtship?", Brian? You can't be serious. What a lie.
1
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG - this is the problem with journalism today. All reporters want to do is say "on the one side this, on the other, that." No wonder citizens don't trust MSM. Trump is lying and needs to be called out. He is lying like no one has ever lied. Yes, politicians stretch the truth and sometimes twist things, to their liking. But Trump is a whole 'nother beast. And he needs to be called out. Not using the word "lie" is an abandonment of journalistic principles. It is inaccurate, incorrect and just plain wrong to not call it what it is, the name of politeness. He is a dangerous man.
30
I take this column as an attempt to backtrack from the "false balance" train wreck of a column, and I'm not impressed. It's like she's saying, look! We really can call a lie a lie! The tone is off. The Times hates to use the word "lie," but Trump brings it out in the place? It's like last week's discussion never happened.
M. Spayd also has a tendency to condescend to readers - telling us that language is important in politics, and defining"messaging" for us. No kidding?
M. Spayd also has a tendency to condescend to readers - telling us that language is important in politics, and defining"messaging" for us. No kidding?
26
I wonder if they'll ever use the word "lie" again.
Hey it only took them EIGHT YEARS to finally call it a lie. Isn't that progress?
Based on Ms. Spayd's previous attack on NYT readers for their dislike of false equivalence, I suspect that she will now be demanding that the editorial board call Hillary for lying...about something...anything...
14
Just read an editorial in the Times titled "Mr. Trump’s Stupid Excuses on Taxes".
"Stupid excuses"? "fallacious excuses"? Since the IRS has said there is no problem with his releasing tax returns being audited (if indeed, they really are under audit), Trumps saying he can't release them because they're being audited would seem to qualify as a bald-faced lie and not an opinion. Why so afraid of a little three letter word?
"Stupid excuses"? "fallacious excuses"? Since the IRS has said there is no problem with his releasing tax returns being audited (if indeed, they really are under audit), Trumps saying he can't release them because they're being audited would seem to qualify as a bald-faced lie and not an opinion. Why so afraid of a little three letter word?
31
Ryan's definitions are important, but incomplete, it seems. Our hyper partisan digital media (especially Fox) makes agreed upon facts rarer and rarer. See how House Speaker Ryan keeps being able to make outrageous budgets for the government that don't add up, would worsen inequality, but isn't called on it in a meangful way. Number two: intentionality is almost impossible to prove. I doubt the Times would be ok with saying we cannot know if candidate X is lying, but they keep repeating demonstrably stupid arguments or faulty evidence, so we'll label it "dumb." so in practice, we just keep shading the truth, keeping our powder dry for when it's really needed (point three). I'd say the Presidency and going to war are two places where point three should be automatically flagged (as opposed to running for city council, or what to name a Post Office). During the last Iraq war, the Times didn't exactly cover itself in glory in being able to either fact check, or buck the media consensus. they haven't been as bad with the Trump campaign, but there's a lot of false equivalency that they've gone along with because rather than being the leading voice of the media, or civil society, they want to stay in the rhetorical center of our corporate media.
10
A lie is deliberately false communication intended to obscure the truth. Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump tell them to the American people often. Mr. Trump does not bother to embellish lies in the hope that they will be accepted as truth. In this way he actually demonstrates more respect than Mrs. Clinton does for the intelligence of the public and the New York Times. We know when we are being lied to and Mr. Trump knows that we know he is lying. Mrs. Clinton harbors the hubris to think that she is deceiving us. Which is worse and why isn't there a better choice?
1
FNL, your remarks about how Trump lies honestly, that is, he doesn't expect anyone to believe him while Clinton, who embellishes her lies, does expect belief is twisted. Trump's lies, birtherism in particular, are not intended to be statements of fact but are primitive tribal sounds that his followers vibrate to. Just because Trump communicates to the reptilian brain does not make his statements honorable. Clinton spins, but there is no statement that she has made during the campaign that even comes close to what is daily fare for Trump.
22
His.
Hillary's lies are mostly the sort of white lie any of us tell. Far more have been told about her than by her. That's why nothing has ever stuck. It wasn't true to begin with.
Trump lives by the lie. It has been his way of life since he inherited Daddy's money.
He's a professional con man
Hillary's lies are mostly the sort of white lie any of us tell. Far more have been told about her than by her. That's why nothing has ever stuck. It wasn't true to begin with.
Trump lives by the lie. It has been his way of life since he inherited Daddy's money.
He's a professional con man
20
Let me start off by saying WE ALL LIE. We lie because we don't remember. We lie because we fill in gaps with things that aren't true to justify our actions. We lie because it makes a better story. We lie to hide things that aren't socially acceptable. We lie to spare other people's feelings. We lie to get out of things we don't want to do.
HRC has been called out on every single one of these things in the last 30 years for the most trivial of reasons. And all she is really doing is what we all do every day. The enormous elephant in the room when the Right attacks her is why? They never can seem to manage to come up with a reason why she would willfully lie. And the reason is because everyone does it. But in her it makes her sneaky and mistrusted. There is quite literally nothing she can say that Right does not paint as a lie. Even an illness is a lie because she didn't immediately call a Press Conference to tell the world she sneezed.
Meanwhile we have a man who tells whoppers that would embarrass Huck Finn. He lies about facts that are everywhere proven. He is beyond shameless.
And somehow these two are equal.
People give themselves way too much credit. The next time you lie to spare someones feelings, imagine instead telling that person you will write them a check to pay off all of their bills then buy them a house on the Rivera. Are those two falsehoods equivalent? If you think they are then we have a bigger problem in this society than we ever imagined.
HRC has been called out on every single one of these things in the last 30 years for the most trivial of reasons. And all she is really doing is what we all do every day. The enormous elephant in the room when the Right attacks her is why? They never can seem to manage to come up with a reason why she would willfully lie. And the reason is because everyone does it. But in her it makes her sneaky and mistrusted. There is quite literally nothing she can say that Right does not paint as a lie. Even an illness is a lie because she didn't immediately call a Press Conference to tell the world she sneezed.
Meanwhile we have a man who tells whoppers that would embarrass Huck Finn. He lies about facts that are everywhere proven. He is beyond shameless.
And somehow these two are equal.
People give themselves way too much credit. The next time you lie to spare someones feelings, imagine instead telling that person you will write them a check to pay off all of their bills then buy them a house on the Rivera. Are those two falsehoods equivalent? If you think they are then we have a bigger problem in this society than we ever imagined.
3
Fine. I can't defend Trump's assertions about Obama's birth. However, let's play fair. We know HRC has lied repeatedly -- from the reason for the Benghazi attacks (it wasn't a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim film) to the reason she set up her own e-mail server (she wanted to use just one device) to her lies about why the White House Travel office workers were fired. I could go on. But the Times won't call those lies because they are in the tank for HRC. If you don't believe that -- look at today's opinion pieces -- an "editorial" by HRC -- which is really a political ad -- and multiple anti Trump screeds (which occurs daily).
I'm not for Trump, but the bias of the Times is simply ridiculous. And it's not just Trump. Read the article about the shooting in Charlotte -- the headline reads "Protests erupt after Police Kill a Black Man" -- but fails to mention that the protests were really riots and looting and that the officer who shot the individual was Black. In the article, the writer continues the narrative that Blacks are being targeted and killed by police -- which is simply a lie. All the facts, including research covered in an article in the Times but yet Times writers repeat that narrative over and and over.
So -- the Times wants to call Trump out on the birther thing -- fine. Fair But play fair all across the board.
I'm not for Trump, but the bias of the Times is simply ridiculous. And it's not just Trump. Read the article about the shooting in Charlotte -- the headline reads "Protests erupt after Police Kill a Black Man" -- but fails to mention that the protests were really riots and looting and that the officer who shot the individual was Black. In the article, the writer continues the narrative that Blacks are being targeted and killed by police -- which is simply a lie. All the facts, including research covered in an article in the Times but yet Times writers repeat that narrative over and and over.
So -- the Times wants to call Trump out on the birther thing -- fine. Fair But play fair all across the board.
The stakes in this case are too high. He's not running for dog-catcher. He's running for a job that will impact our lives for years to come. He's dangerous and unpredictable. The Times and other media have to call out the lies over and over again. Front page, editorial page, back page and cartoon page.
27
One of Trump's "selling points" is what he terms political correctness. When Trump intentionally declares something that is patently a lie, and the Press refer to it as "stretching the truth", this is political correctness on the part of The Press! Thankfully, the NYT is addressing this - however belatedly! - and thank you for that!
11
Trump brings out the worst in people. Even to the point that you have to stand your ground and yes call Trump for what he is, a Con Man, Flim-Flam Man. A phony.
12
So, how would the NY Times rate the statement made by Donald Trump that President Obama and Secretary Clinton were the founders of the Islamic State; something repeated and insisted that he meant literally for two days before pivoting and saying that he was being “sarcastic”. Was that a lie, or does it go so far beyond a lie to enter the realm of fantasy or derangement?
23
That editorial, where the NYTimes called a lie a lie, called *me* to renew my subscription.
It is, frankly, a lie NOT to call a lie out for what it is: A lie. It's not the facts that are in question here. It's moral courage, and backbone.
The Times finally showed both.
It is, frankly, a lie NOT to call a lie out for what it is: A lie. It's not the facts that are in question here. It's moral courage, and backbone.
The Times finally showed both.
16
No one really cares that he lies. Isn't that clear? Who pays attention to truth? The spin doctors, the damage control experts, the "I was kidding" excuses, the "I didn't mean it that way" explanations -- exist to cloud the FACTS. What press actually calls those things out for what they are -- lies?
Don't get sued. Don't say anything that could get you sued. Don't upset the owners of the paper or the TV network (the 1% of the 1%). Just say: it has been claimed, it has been alluded to, it has been implied that, and make no effort to say: it is a bold face lie, a falsehood. No, no law suit.
Trump gets away with it because the media lets him. Any news is news and publicity sells papers and brings in readers and viewers. Money talks.
If people cared about the truth, if they knew how to actually reason and think things through instead of getting their news from FOX, Russ Limbaugh, or even the NYT, it would have been apparent by now. People believe what they like. They believe what aligns with the beliefs they currently have. They want to have "proof" that the things they think are R E A L. Lies are part of that equation. Climate deniers or skeptics can't be printed anymore. Creationism is real. Is that lying? Of course.
If it were easy to tell the truth the world would be very different. Since we rarely do it on a daily basis at home or work, does it seem odd that politicians also lie on the stump?
Try telling the absolute truth every minute all day tomorrow. Good luck.
Don't get sued. Don't say anything that could get you sued. Don't upset the owners of the paper or the TV network (the 1% of the 1%). Just say: it has been claimed, it has been alluded to, it has been implied that, and make no effort to say: it is a bold face lie, a falsehood. No, no law suit.
Trump gets away with it because the media lets him. Any news is news and publicity sells papers and brings in readers and viewers. Money talks.
If people cared about the truth, if they knew how to actually reason and think things through instead of getting their news from FOX, Russ Limbaugh, or even the NYT, it would have been apparent by now. People believe what they like. They believe what aligns with the beliefs they currently have. They want to have "proof" that the things they think are R E A L. Lies are part of that equation. Climate deniers or skeptics can't be printed anymore. Creationism is real. Is that lying? Of course.
If it were easy to tell the truth the world would be very different. Since we rarely do it on a daily basis at home or work, does it seem odd that politicians also lie on the stump?
Try telling the absolute truth every minute all day tomorrow. Good luck.
1
Jeanie, I'm not running for President.
1
I think the Times should use this term whenever it applies and is provable. Part of a newspaper's job is to help the reader distinguish fact from fiction. Some nebulous feeling of partisanship shouldn't frighten it away from calling a spade a spade or a lie a lie.
4
What about the responsibility of the journalist to report facts in addition to statements by candidates (or anyone else for that matter)? Intentionality is difficult to establish in a court of law, let alone under a deadline. When the NYT or the Post follow up a false statement by someone with facts, it is more powerful than labeling he or she a liar
3
When is the NYT et.al going to come to the realization that Candidates are Nothing without media coverage? Who is afraid of who[m]?
2
I have a favorite Trump lie. It's not about big issues or about a subject seriously being debated in the campaign. It's my favorite because it was just a gratuitous lie that could be fact checked (or lie confirmed) with a few phone calls. And Trump knew that when he spoke the lie.
It was during a radio interview and the subject daycare came up. Trump made a point that all of his resorts and hotels have an assortment of facilities to support the children of his employees, such as might be found at a daycare center. A few quick calls by the journalists determined that those facilities are actually in place. But they are not to support the employees, they are there for exclusive use by the guests.
I don't think Trump planned this lie in advance, to trivial. I think it's just his nature to lie in any situation where he can get some immediate advantage or gratification.
Refraining fro use of the word lie is just one of the last vestiges of political correctness. Trump should applaud its use.
It was during a radio interview and the subject daycare came up. Trump made a point that all of his resorts and hotels have an assortment of facilities to support the children of his employees, such as might be found at a daycare center. A few quick calls by the journalists determined that those facilities are actually in place. But they are not to support the employees, they are there for exclusive use by the guests.
I don't think Trump planned this lie in advance, to trivial. I think it's just his nature to lie in any situation where he can get some immediate advantage or gratification.
Refraining fro use of the word lie is just one of the last vestiges of political correctness. Trump should applaud its use.
11
This baby step toward fair reporting will not solve the problem. We need the Times to report what you observe in context, without striving for a strained attempt at balance. Put truth over balance. If this is an "absurdist campaign" that has more to do with the NYT letting Trump get away with it so long. Analyzing campaign tactics and reporting the apparent strategy on the news pages is not opinion. The word "lie" is both charged and vague. There are different types of lies and different degrees. Some questions are really rephrased attacks to trap the candidate indicting him or herself for a sound bite where all the facts are known. So you are really saying you will report certain types of news only when it becomes too extreme to ignore, but hold back when less so. You also need to go back and replace the false equivalence response of the public editor with an answer on the substance of the arguments. If you would eliminate the false balance, you would not be facing the tortured logic that the future now holds in trying measure whether a lie meets your new standard of partial fair reporting.
4
My preference would be for you to focus on facts; call the lies what they are: lies. No need for the NYT to worry about appearances or be sensitive to overuse when faced with an habitual liar. Someone for whom the truth has no merit deserves no special favors. When virtually every utterance out of Trump's mouth is a lie, I rely on the NYT to label it as such--your readers are tough enough to take it, trust me.
8
There are in fact numerous issues in this election that are absolutely not "frivolous political disputes." Trump has lied about many of them. No American neighborhood is less safe than Afghanistan. That is a flat out lie, and the NYTimes and Trump know that. Our President and Clinton are not the founders of ISIS. Another lie. The terror attack in Orlando was not caused in anyway by improper or ineffective vetting. Another clear lie. Most Mexicans who enter the US illegally are not criminals. A racist lie. The list here is very long. These are not frivolous issues. These blatant falsehoods require an equally strong response form the media. Refusing to do that is not "objective" it is in fact deciding to side with and protect the liar.
17
The most accurate term for something, whatever it is, should always be used. If a presidential candidate lies about something, the only respectable thing a newspaper can do is call it a lie. The frequency of this is utterly irrelevant. Killing is worse than lying, yet I don't see the Times bending over backward to find a more palatable euphemism when reporting about war, terrorism, gun violence, etc. For heaven's sake do your journalistic duty! Someone seeking the highest office in the country SHOULDN'T lie, but if he/she does, any newspaper that wants to be taken seriously jolly well better say so in no uncertain terms, every single time. If a candidate--or an elected official--lies with abandon, it seems imperative that the voters be informed of this as often as necessary. It's a sign of danger. It's up to the voters (those who read, anyway) to decide what to make of it.
10
Very powerful essay. My take on this is that English teachers are not providing enough vocabulary development in grades 5-12, nor in college-level composition and rhetoric.
We are an uneducated people who bat words around to spark debate and argument, as well as to denigrate others. We may not be aware of the power of some common monosyllabic "street vocabulary," also known as "vulgar" language. This phenomenon occurs at the most basic levels--in families, on the playground, in the classroom, in the employee lounge. Words provoke when misunderstood or when deliberately used to hurt. In some families, a "mistake" is a lie; a paraphrased, innocuous statement evokes the defensive, "I never said that, you liar."
What has happened to civility? This country needs serious correction in education, family, neighborhood, work ethos. We are people. We should recognize each other as real people with real feelings, with real ideas and opinions, as well as real people striving to understand what others attempt to communicate to them.
Two important vocabulary queries: When you say...,do you mean....? and, "I understood you to say.... Did I get that right, or do you want to clarify?
We are an uneducated people who bat words around to spark debate and argument, as well as to denigrate others. We may not be aware of the power of some common monosyllabic "street vocabulary," also known as "vulgar" language. This phenomenon occurs at the most basic levels--in families, on the playground, in the classroom, in the employee lounge. Words provoke when misunderstood or when deliberately used to hurt. In some families, a "mistake" is a lie; a paraphrased, innocuous statement evokes the defensive, "I never said that, you liar."
What has happened to civility? This country needs serious correction in education, family, neighborhood, work ethos. We are people. We should recognize each other as real people with real feelings, with real ideas and opinions, as well as real people striving to understand what others attempt to communicate to them.
Two important vocabulary queries: When you say...,do you mean....? and, "I understood you to say.... Did I get that right, or do you want to clarify?
1
I had a dear, departed friend - who was a mentor to me in many areas of my life -
One of his favorite sayings was -
"There's the truth - and then there's the lie about the truth."
It's really that simple...
One of his favorite sayings was -
"There's the truth - and then there's the lie about the truth."
It's really that simple...
2
With apologies to WB Yeats:
Caught in his narcissist music, Trump neglects
Monuments of Republican intellects.
Caught in his narcissist music, Trump neglects
Monuments of Republican intellects.
"tinged with racial overtones and dark motives" as written by the Public Editor.
Are you talking about Hillary who initiated the question whether Obama was a muslim or whether her buddie Blumintal's peddling the story about Obama being born in Kenya in 2008.
The knife cuts both ways and the comment could equally apply to Hillary. And now, with your "soft" suggestions, I sense that even the Public Editor has been co-oped by the NYT management to avoid saying anything remotely that would suggest that Hillary's team in 2008 started this so-called false birther story. Telling the straight "truth" in your piece also means when making comments about an article on such a topic, you should include all the facts and the context at hand, not just referencing the false narratives of the NYT reporters.
Are you talking about Hillary who initiated the question whether Obama was a muslim or whether her buddie Blumintal's peddling the story about Obama being born in Kenya in 2008.
The knife cuts both ways and the comment could equally apply to Hillary. And now, with your "soft" suggestions, I sense that even the Public Editor has been co-oped by the NYT management to avoid saying anything remotely that would suggest that Hillary's team in 2008 started this so-called false birther story. Telling the straight "truth" in your piece also means when making comments about an article on such a topic, you should include all the facts and the context at hand, not just referencing the false narratives of the NYT reporters.
1
Clinton did not initiate the question of whether President Obama was a Muslim. This started in at least 2004 with Andy Martin. Clinton never made any statement that said Obama was a Muslim. It's also far from proven that Blumenthal ever pushed a story that Obama was born in Kenya. He denies it and the person making the accusation has not supplied any evidence that this actually happened.
4
Oh, Paul. Is Obama the founder of ISIS, or did Clinton make that up as well? Oh wait, she's the co-founder, I'm sorry.
And Trump "made" Obama show his birth certificate.
And Trump was "against the war in Iraq" before it started.
And Mexico is going to pay for our "big, beautiful wall".
And muslims were "cheering in the streets of New Jersey" on 9/11.
And he's "doing great with hispanics and african-americans".
And our military is "very depleted".
And "ISIS wanted Hillary Clinton to be president".
And Trump "made" Obama show his birth certificate.
And Trump was "against the war in Iraq" before it started.
And Mexico is going to pay for our "big, beautiful wall".
And muslims were "cheering in the streets of New Jersey" on 9/11.
And he's "doing great with hispanics and african-americans".
And our military is "very depleted".
And "ISIS wanted Hillary Clinton to be president".
6
If the emperor's naked, somebody needs to call it.
5
When in doubt about a word, I always turn to Merriam-Webster:
lie
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression
In both of these definitions intent is a crucial element. Just to misstate a fact is not enough - that would be just what it says - a misstatement of fact. To lie is to make such a misstatement knowingly - with the intent to deceive - which infers a purpose behind the lie - the creation of the false or misleading impression..
Now comes in the element of common sense. Why would Donald Trump put forth a lie about Barack Obama's citizenship? Why would he knowingly tell that lie - with an intent to deceive - to create a false or misleading impression... What would he have to gain? What did he gain?
The answers are obvious - the intent just as obvious and the "lie" obvious - no one should worry about calling it that. It is a proper usage of the English language.
The final proof is the recantation of the lie with no new evidence to cause that recant - just a new situation in which the incentive to lie becomes less than the incentive to tell the truth.
A lie by any other name...
lie
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression
In both of these definitions intent is a crucial element. Just to misstate a fact is not enough - that would be just what it says - a misstatement of fact. To lie is to make such a misstatement knowingly - with the intent to deceive - which infers a purpose behind the lie - the creation of the false or misleading impression..
Now comes in the element of common sense. Why would Donald Trump put forth a lie about Barack Obama's citizenship? Why would he knowingly tell that lie - with an intent to deceive - to create a false or misleading impression... What would he have to gain? What did he gain?
The answers are obvious - the intent just as obvious and the "lie" obvious - no one should worry about calling it that. It is a proper usage of the English language.
The final proof is the recantation of the lie with no new evidence to cause that recant - just a new situation in which the incentive to lie becomes less than the incentive to tell the truth.
A lie by any other name...
2
If a politician says one thing and does another, or their record indicates that they did numerous things that an objective analysis would determine were not consistent with what their words during an election campaign seem to imply regarding their politics, can those words be considered lies?
Should a news organization be responsible for holding that politician responsible for the contradictions? If not, is the news organization, in effect, also lying?
Should a news organization be responsible for holding that politician responsible for the contradictions? If not, is the news organization, in effect, also lying?
3
If someone states under oath that something is true and it is later proven that he/she knew that it was not true, it is called perjury, Any media outlet would be remiss in its duty not to call it that. Although a politician's words are (generally) not made under oath, any media outlet has the right, if not the duty, to call a lie a lie.
3
Here I was optimistic that the new Public Editor had finally found her legs - alas, once again, she wimps out and looks for 'balance' when none exists. The job of the Public Editor is to call out the NYT when it fails to adhere to its own high standards. I'd give up my feed except I relish the comments, which seem to have a better take on when the NYT fails. Spayd falls short of all previous holders of the title.
9
The Times is giving Trump's sociopathy a huge advantage by continuing to treat him by social norms that mean NOTHING to him in his own behavior. He lies, cheats and betrays, but always gets the benefit of the doubt, because people who observe limits cannot fully grasp what it means NOT to have any.
By not calling Trump's obvious factual untruths "lies," you fuel his trajectory. You can't shame or guilt him into honesty, because he feels neither, but you can at least warn the con artist's potential victims that they are entering a web of lies, where there are no guarantees of anything once it leaves his mouth.
By ignoring issues and constantly harping on the old partisan meme of Clinton's "untrustworthiness"(egad, she didn't tell the world she had walking pneumonia quickly enough!), while not calling Trump's lies "lies," you are perpetuating a deeply distorted picture of the two candidates. Look at the comment boards -- how many people blithely pronounce Trump and Clinton "no different." Something is deeply wrong here.
By not calling Trump's obvious factual untruths "lies," you fuel his trajectory. You can't shame or guilt him into honesty, because he feels neither, but you can at least warn the con artist's potential victims that they are entering a web of lies, where there are no guarantees of anything once it leaves his mouth.
By ignoring issues and constantly harping on the old partisan meme of Clinton's "untrustworthiness"(egad, she didn't tell the world she had walking pneumonia quickly enough!), while not calling Trump's lies "lies," you are perpetuating a deeply distorted picture of the two candidates. Look at the comment boards -- how many people blithely pronounce Trump and Clinton "no different." Something is deeply wrong here.
12
My best friend thinks Trump's aversion to the truth is an inherited trait - like eye color. I contend it is a learned behavior, like pursing your lips for a selfie.
There is a third possibility - that Trump is simply an opportunistic con man who would say anything to get into power - but we've both discounted that possibility. For that to be true, the 40% of Americans who support him would have to be suckers who would willingly believe the patent nonsense of a snake oil salesman. And that can't possibly be true. Can it?
There is a third possibility - that Trump is simply an opportunistic con man who would say anything to get into power - but we've both discounted that possibility. For that to be true, the 40% of Americans who support him would have to be suckers who would willingly believe the patent nonsense of a snake oil salesman. And that can't possibly be true. Can it?
4
Donald Trump has shown himself to be a pathological liar, and some of his lies have serious consequences.
The more the media bends over backwards so as not to appear "partisan", the more contempt he shows for them and the American public by doubling down on his lies, lying about what he just lied about; and telling new, outrageous lies.
Thus we are constantly confronted with the handy work of a person, whom his ghost writer, Tony Schwartz, described as a "sociopath" after 18 months of listening and watching him operate.
So what if it "feels partisan" to call a lie a lie if what he says is found to be blatantly, in-your-face untrue. What school of journalism teaches that stating a proven fact is appearing to take sides?
It is a dereliction of duty for so-called journalists to report any of his daily avalanche of lies, and not call him out on them or use some gentile euphemism. In not doing their job, they have and are promoting Trump's corrupt campaign.
The fact that the NYT's public editor has to justify finally calling one of Trump's bald=faced lies a lie, shows the timidity Trump seems to have instilled in the media.
It is as If he is already elected, and Trump is carrying out his campaign threat to enact laws muzzling any news media that dare challenge him.
The more the media bends over backwards so as not to appear "partisan", the more contempt he shows for them and the American public by doubling down on his lies, lying about what he just lied about; and telling new, outrageous lies.
Thus we are constantly confronted with the handy work of a person, whom his ghost writer, Tony Schwartz, described as a "sociopath" after 18 months of listening and watching him operate.
So what if it "feels partisan" to call a lie a lie if what he says is found to be blatantly, in-your-face untrue. What school of journalism teaches that stating a proven fact is appearing to take sides?
It is a dereliction of duty for so-called journalists to report any of his daily avalanche of lies, and not call him out on them or use some gentile euphemism. In not doing their job, they have and are promoting Trump's corrupt campaign.
The fact that the NYT's public editor has to justify finally calling one of Trump's bald=faced lies a lie, shows the timidity Trump seems to have instilled in the media.
It is as If he is already elected, and Trump is carrying out his campaign threat to enact laws muzzling any news media that dare challenge him.
12
Political editor Carolyn Ryan is absolutely correct. The word “lie” is appropriate and justified precisely because it meets and exceeds the conditions for accurately naming what occurred. A euphemism would be a dereliction of journalistic duty. Further, the intent and function of the lie in this protracted situation is tantamount to the perpetration of a fraud: to manipulate or induce through deceit, artifice, sharp practice, or breach of confidence.
The truth is that Hillary, like every political leader or wannabe in the history of the human race, lies occasionally. Trump lies just about every time he opens his mouth. Label them all as lies and Hillary will come out ahead of her pathologically lying opponent. Imagine a hockey or basketball contest where one team plays pretty clean and the other plays consistently dirty. Now imagine the refs don't call any penalties. Figure it out folks.
6
I applaud your efforts to clarify Trump's various "lies," but you should know that his supporters do NOT read the New York Times, and even if they did, not one vote will be changed. Sad, but there it is. Still. keep plugging away.
1
The French have an expression that translates as "he lies as he breathes." That what comes to my mind whenever I can't avoid the thought of of Donald Trump, whose ego seems to have no concept of what truth is.
The amazing thing is that, despite the effectively innumerable lies that have spewed forth from Trump's mouth during this interminable election cycle, it has taken this long for the Gray Lady to properly identify even one Trump statement as a lie.
Corporate media show us endless repetitions of Trump calling his opponent "Crooked Hillary" without comment, even though the fact checkers have proclaimed her the most truthful candidate. Millions of voters unthinkingly believe that Clinton is an incorrigible liar, even as the corporate media give Trump limitless free air time to tell lie after lie after lie after lie after lie.
If President Trump brings the executives and shareholders of the Times Corporation to ruin as he smashes the nation's wealth, standing, and credibility like a bull in a china shop, the editorial board has only itself to blame for having failed to call Trump on his incessant lies. Asserting that "The Times should use this term rarely" is pure rubbish when Trump lies so copiously.
The amazing thing is that, despite the effectively innumerable lies that have spewed forth from Trump's mouth during this interminable election cycle, it has taken this long for the Gray Lady to properly identify even one Trump statement as a lie.
Corporate media show us endless repetitions of Trump calling his opponent "Crooked Hillary" without comment, even though the fact checkers have proclaimed her the most truthful candidate. Millions of voters unthinkingly believe that Clinton is an incorrigible liar, even as the corporate media give Trump limitless free air time to tell lie after lie after lie after lie after lie.
If President Trump brings the executives and shareholders of the Times Corporation to ruin as he smashes the nation's wealth, standing, and credibility like a bull in a china shop, the editorial board has only itself to blame for having failed to call Trump on his incessant lies. Asserting that "The Times should use this term rarely" is pure rubbish when Trump lies so copiously.
10
The NY Times permitted its late columnist William Safire to write that Hillary is "a congenital liar"—yet the Times still supports her bid for the presidency.
Hillary said, “Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?!"
(From the book "The Survivor)
A very small sample of Hillary Clinton's Congenital Lies:
She didn’t know that her brothers were getting paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
She “removed” a boatload of stuff from the White House, when they left, and called it "a clerical error," returning everything.
She blamed the Benghazi murder of four Americans as a "spontaneous" attack.
She fully backed the mission to kill Ben Laden.
She didn’t know that her staff would fire the travel staff….after she told them to do so.
She didn’t know a fundraiser in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported that it did.
She opposed NAFTA at the time.
She lied about her missing billing records which “showed up” on their own.
She negotiated the release of Macedonian refugees—released a day before she arrived.
She lied as a member of the house judiciary committee
She lied about flying into Bosnia under sniper fire but admitted to the falsehood later on.
She misrepresented her record opposing the Iraq war.
She lied about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary.
She lied about her trip to Africa.
She violated U.S. law by setting up her home government email server.
Like we asked of Nixon;
Would you buy a used car from that woman?"
I think Trump reached the tipping point on Friday in a campaign rally purporting to be a press conference where he backed off his years of birther claims and attempted to foist responsibility onto Hillary. The media finally concluded it was all a lie.
3
Trump's campaign began with a lie.
For about a decade now, there has been a net outflow of Mexicans moving from the U.S. back to Mexico. Yet, front and center, as though it were the most burning issue of the day, Trump promised on day one to deal harshly with a supposed torrent of illegal immigration from Mexico, that supposedly has directly resulted in joblessness, a stagnant economy, a devastating loss of tax revenue to welfare cheats, crime, drug addiction.
It's the perfect lie - promise a radical solution to a non-existent problem, by fashioning the perfect fictionalized scapegoat. 'You've got problems, here's who caused your problems, here's what we're going to do to those people, and that will fix it.'
We all know it's a lie.
Why has it taken a year for our press to come to grips with the lying and to call it what it is? The man tells a packed auditorium of working people that he proposes tax reform that will make them richer than before. Why doesn't the press make that lie front page news, so everyone will know his tax proposal would, in fact, provide virtually no tax relief to 90% of us, and would enrich each of the wealthiest 10% of families by hundreds of thousands a year? Surely that's a lie voters will understand. Tell them there's a pickpocket in the room!
Why, instead, do we read the thousandth article about Clinton's email server, or who wrote Melania's silly, haltingly delivered convention address?
Trump lies. The press just needs to tell the truth.
For about a decade now, there has been a net outflow of Mexicans moving from the U.S. back to Mexico. Yet, front and center, as though it were the most burning issue of the day, Trump promised on day one to deal harshly with a supposed torrent of illegal immigration from Mexico, that supposedly has directly resulted in joblessness, a stagnant economy, a devastating loss of tax revenue to welfare cheats, crime, drug addiction.
It's the perfect lie - promise a radical solution to a non-existent problem, by fashioning the perfect fictionalized scapegoat. 'You've got problems, here's who caused your problems, here's what we're going to do to those people, and that will fix it.'
We all know it's a lie.
Why has it taken a year for our press to come to grips with the lying and to call it what it is? The man tells a packed auditorium of working people that he proposes tax reform that will make them richer than before. Why doesn't the press make that lie front page news, so everyone will know his tax proposal would, in fact, provide virtually no tax relief to 90% of us, and would enrich each of the wealthiest 10% of families by hundreds of thousands a year? Surely that's a lie voters will understand. Tell them there's a pickpocket in the room!
Why, instead, do we read the thousandth article about Clinton's email server, or who wrote Melania's silly, haltingly delivered convention address?
Trump lies. The press just needs to tell the truth.
6
A reasonable definition of a lie: A statement intentionally made to convey a claim for whose major thrust evidence is widely known to be lacking (e.g., because it is false) and which is made by someone responsible for knowing the evidence (whether they actually know or not).
If I read Politifact correctly, Clinton's server contained 3 documents correctly labeled as secret out of "tens of thousands" of emails. She was clearly naive, first in trusting the accuracy of the headings, second in making such easily falsified claims about the perfect accuracy of the server's use, but prosecutors would certainly agree that 99.99% accurate rounds to "True".
Regarding Trump, consider that evidence accumulates, but does not abruptly shift. When he makes one claim and later its opposite, for instance about Obama's birthplace, he may not know the facts, but he knows at least one of the two is a lie.
Moreover, reporting seems to have shown that there was never any evidence interpretable by a rational person as a gathering of New Jersey Muslims rejoicing about the World Trade Center attacks. Trump should have known there was no such evidence, so that too is a lie.
The press is the privileged compiler of the pertinent evidence. They are in the best position to bulldog questions of the form: This claim that you made was false and you should have known it. Did you lie on purpose, or were you just irresponsible and ignorant of the facts?
If I read Politifact correctly, Clinton's server contained 3 documents correctly labeled as secret out of "tens of thousands" of emails. She was clearly naive, first in trusting the accuracy of the headings, second in making such easily falsified claims about the perfect accuracy of the server's use, but prosecutors would certainly agree that 99.99% accurate rounds to "True".
Regarding Trump, consider that evidence accumulates, but does not abruptly shift. When he makes one claim and later its opposite, for instance about Obama's birthplace, he may not know the facts, but he knows at least one of the two is a lie.
Moreover, reporting seems to have shown that there was never any evidence interpretable by a rational person as a gathering of New Jersey Muslims rejoicing about the World Trade Center attacks. Trump should have known there was no such evidence, so that too is a lie.
The press is the privileged compiler of the pertinent evidence. They are in the best position to bulldog questions of the form: This claim that you made was false and you should have known it. Did you lie on purpose, or were you just irresponsible and ignorant of the facts?
4
Good for you NYT. I have kept track of many of Trump's lies on Evernote and have 17 pages each with 4-8 items per page. I'm saddened and stunned that the truth doesn't seem to matter to his followers. He's like the Pied Piper of Lies and Lecherous comments. These lemmings continue to stay loyal.
He makes up new ones to distract--like today's bias debate hosts-- to cover-up the negative PR about his alleged unethical foundation grants.
In fact, he's tossed out so many lies, that you cannot keep up. Webster's Dictionary is even contemplating updating LIAR with Trump as one of the references. He always knew he would go down in the history books.
He makes up new ones to distract--like today's bias debate hosts-- to cover-up the negative PR about his alleged unethical foundation grants.
In fact, he's tossed out so many lies, that you cannot keep up. Webster's Dictionary is even contemplating updating LIAR with Trump as one of the references. He always knew he would go down in the history books.
1
".....I think The Times should use this term rarely. Its power in political warfare has so freighted the word that its mere appearance on news pages, however factually accurate, feels partisan."
This is a totally arbitrary marker. When something in matters of fact is obviously a lie, it should be called a lie. If this happens frequently, then the "lie" word should be used frequently. I don't recall if the Times used the word when reporting on Matt Lauer's failure to call out Trump's false claim to have opposed the Iraq war from the start - if not, it should have. In these days of easily retrieved video clips, it's often a simple matter to establish when someone is lying about past statements or events; all it needs is a little diligence.
I understand that overuse risks devaluing the word's value, so it's incumbent on journalists to back up the use of the word with proof, in cases where the particulars of a lie are not common knowledge.
Sometimes you know, without being able to prove it, that a candidate is lying. I'm only being semi-frivolous here, but isn't Colbert's "truthiness" just made for such cases?
This is a totally arbitrary marker. When something in matters of fact is obviously a lie, it should be called a lie. If this happens frequently, then the "lie" word should be used frequently. I don't recall if the Times used the word when reporting on Matt Lauer's failure to call out Trump's false claim to have opposed the Iraq war from the start - if not, it should have. In these days of easily retrieved video clips, it's often a simple matter to establish when someone is lying about past statements or events; all it needs is a little diligence.
I understand that overuse risks devaluing the word's value, so it's incumbent on journalists to back up the use of the word with proof, in cases where the particulars of a lie are not common knowledge.
Sometimes you know, without being able to prove it, that a candidate is lying. I'm only being semi-frivolous here, but isn't Colbert's "truthiness" just made for such cases?
23
It sounds like Carolyn Ryan and Liz Spayd both engage in editorial truthiness. Honestly, Ms. Spayd, don't tell us what it feels like.
2
Kudos for trying to come up with criteria for determine if something is a lie.
A false assertion made with the iintent to deceive sounds like good criteria.
An intentional omission of relevant facts with the intent to deceive is a lie.
Now let's discuss the difference between "pay to play" and bribe.
A false assertion made with the iintent to deceive sounds like good criteria.
An intentional omission of relevant facts with the intent to deceive is a lie.
Now let's discuss the difference between "pay to play" and bribe.
11
While the NYTimes is entirely correct to call out Trump's said lie, the newspaper will be hypocritical indeed if it now doesn't apply that new zeal to uncover lies made by all parties regardless of their political leanings.
Over the past two years, the NYTimes has perpetuated the Black Lives Matter's outright falsehood that blacks are being systemically killed by police for unjustified reasons. All the evidence---from FBI numbers to a (black) Harvard statistician's findings--have shown BLM's argument is abjectly false.
Will the NYTImes now put an article on it's upper-right front page calling out BLM for the egregious lie? If not, then the NYTimes is being disingenuous in calling out Trump's falsehood. If the "feelings" of BLM are relevant and persuasive in the NYTimes' newsroom, then Trump's "feelings" should be also.
Over the past two years, the NYTimes has perpetuated the Black Lives Matter's outright falsehood that blacks are being systemically killed by police for unjustified reasons. All the evidence---from FBI numbers to a (black) Harvard statistician's findings--have shown BLM's argument is abjectly false.
Will the NYTImes now put an article on it's upper-right front page calling out BLM for the egregious lie? If not, then the NYTimes is being disingenuous in calling out Trump's falsehood. If the "feelings" of BLM are relevant and persuasive in the NYTimes' newsroom, then Trump's "feelings" should be also.
10
This would mean something if the NYT wasn't publishing anti-trump articles above the fold every day.
And any article that could be construed to be anti-clinton on page 14.
Will you now print above the fold that she "lied" about Colin Powell advising her to use a private E-Mail server, when she asked him after the fact.
I don't mind your(public editor) hypocrisy, but don't pretend it is anything but a partisan rant orchestrated by the editorial and news side.
Jimmie Reston would be ashamed of you and Abe Rosenthal would be embarrased at what this once great newspaper has become!
And any article that could be construed to be anti-clinton on page 14.
Will you now print above the fold that she "lied" about Colin Powell advising her to use a private E-Mail server, when she asked him after the fact.
I don't mind your(public editor) hypocrisy, but don't pretend it is anything but a partisan rant orchestrated by the editorial and news side.
Jimmie Reston would be ashamed of you and Abe Rosenthal would be embarrased at what this once great newspaper has become!
You have only cited 2 sources in support of your conclusion. One is a law enforcement agency. The other is one statistical study. The fact that he is an African-American is totally irreverent. This is hardly sufficient evidence supporting your allegations.
3
Trumps "falsehood". Can't bring yourself to call it a lie.
2
"That said, I think The Times should use this term rarely" That said, I think the term should be used when applicable based on established criteria. If the candidate chooses to lie over and over, should s/he be protected from that word because the media has determined some arbitrary number of times that it can be used to maintain good taste? If so--the candidate plays the media and it's consumers for fools, as in this case he has done. Is the Times suggesting that only when multiple editors are sufficiently outraged a lie is called "a lie"? Set your criteria and stick to it--if it's based in fact, it's the politician's mouth that makes the choice, not the the editors' sensibilities. Is the Times above this particular truth?
22
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts-
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
27
trump consistently tells lies and the use of them should be called out as it shows what kind of character he has...character disorder. I believe this is objective as it is empirical evidence.
17
It is a lie if what Trump say is demonstrably false, and he should know it is false with reasonable effort (read: Google). That does away with his winking, smirking, "but I didn't *know* it wasn't true" schtick.
Intent is important, but limiting the standard to "knowingly" is too high a burden -- how on earth do you propose to determine what this man knows (and at which moment)?
On the other hand, it's public record that Trump is breathtakingly, astonishingly negligent with the truth, and that he intentionally disregards any responsibility for the consequences of his lies. Presidential candidates have a duty to speak with care. Trump doesn't merely fail in this duty, he gleefully smashes it with a hammer then brags about it.
Intent is important, but limiting the standard to "knowingly" is too high a burden -- how on earth do you propose to determine what this man knows (and at which moment)?
On the other hand, it's public record that Trump is breathtakingly, astonishingly negligent with the truth, and that he intentionally disregards any responsibility for the consequences of his lies. Presidential candidates have a duty to speak with care. Trump doesn't merely fail in this duty, he gleefully smashes it with a hammer then brags about it.
31
'Intent is important, but limiting the standard to "knowingly" is too high a burden -- how on earth do you propose to determine what this man knows (and at which moment)?'
In criminal trials, prosecutors are commonly called upon to prove criminal intent (technically, 'mens rea'). The subject is big, and it is discussed in detail in legal textbooks. See, for example, Chapter 4 in "Criminal Law" By Joel Samaha.
In criminal trials, prosecutors are commonly called upon to prove criminal intent (technically, 'mens rea'). The subject is big, and it is discussed in detail in legal textbooks. See, for example, Chapter 4 in "Criminal Law" By Joel Samaha.
One thing I've learned this election: Loudly labeling someone a "liar" will outright disqualify them in the eyes of many. Who's been called a liar more: Hillary or Donald? How has the press handled Hillary's history vs Donald's? Where are the articles that refute problematic statements with facts and sources? Those have been few and far between.
That label has extremely persuasive meaning to those who don't pay attention, don't read more than one source, don't check facts, and base their opinion solely on whatever media of their choosing is spouting most frequently.
And oh how have you, the media, including the NY Times, have been spouting every word, every move, every facial expression, and every lie that Donald Trump has provided, without telling the public the truth: that he lies.
That label has extremely persuasive meaning to those who don't pay attention, don't read more than one source, don't check facts, and base their opinion solely on whatever media of their choosing is spouting most frequently.
And oh how have you, the media, including the NY Times, have been spouting every word, every move, every facial expression, and every lie that Donald Trump has provided, without telling the public the truth: that he lies.
23
Correction: Trump didn't back off the birther claim "with a smile and a wink." He backed off it angrily and grudgingly.
19
Referring to the birther claim, you say "Yet it is unequivocally false and Trump knows that." That the birther claim is false: that, indeed, is a fact and not an opinion.
But do we know that he knows it's false? I can think of two alternative possibilities, and there are probably more:
1. He doesn't really know whether it's true or false, and he doesn't care.
2. The man doesn't really even have a concept of objective truth.
So if your definition of "lie" requires that the speaker knows that what he's saying is false, I must conclude that "he's lying" is indeed a matter of opinion, not fact.
*Should* the word "lie" be defined that narrowly, or should it include alternative hypotheses like the above? I don't actually care. You could announce that it is Times policy that "lying" includes any utterance about which any sane, mature, person *would* know that it's irresponsible to utter it; and as long as we readers know that that's what you mean, then it is clearly a matter of fact, not opinion, that Mr. Trump is an habitual liar.
Or if you prefer greater precision, you could just say, each time he does it, that he has told an obvious untruth, and avoid the loaded word "lied". Your choice.
But do we know that he knows it's false? I can think of two alternative possibilities, and there are probably more:
1. He doesn't really know whether it's true or false, and he doesn't care.
2. The man doesn't really even have a concept of objective truth.
So if your definition of "lie" requires that the speaker knows that what he's saying is false, I must conclude that "he's lying" is indeed a matter of opinion, not fact.
*Should* the word "lie" be defined that narrowly, or should it include alternative hypotheses like the above? I don't actually care. You could announce that it is Times policy that "lying" includes any utterance about which any sane, mature, person *would* know that it's irresponsible to utter it; and as long as we readers know that that's what you mean, then it is clearly a matter of fact, not opinion, that Mr. Trump is an habitual liar.
Or if you prefer greater precision, you could just say, each time he does it, that he has told an obvious untruth, and avoid the loaded word "lied". Your choice.
4
The Times called it a lie after Trump admitted it wasn't true. So it was a lie, and he knew it.
1
I hope the debate moderators show as much courage as the Times was ultimately able to summon, by calling out Trump each and every time he lies. After all, the moderators are all seasoned journalists, who know their questions in advance, can anticipate many of the answers, and have actual facts at their fingertips.
12
Unlike employees of the New York Times, who coordinate with top management of the paper and therefore have little fear of dismissal, each debate moderate will keep uppermost in their mind what happened in one of the last 2012 presidential debates. Candy Crowley fact checked Romney on a key point related to Bengazi. And what happened? Her career at CNN ended. Seen Candy on TV lately?
2
Suddenly the NYT is aware of the meaning and strength of the word "lie". Where was the NYT when Nafta, a trade agreement foisted upon the working class and middle class Americans was touted as a new way to open up markets overseas for American goods. "There will be more jobs and opportunities for Americans in theses new and expanding markets". That was was a deliberate lie. It misled, mis-represented and ultimately destroyed lives and livelihood of millions of Americans.
I don't believe that NYT truly understands the meaning of the word "lie". Hillary has finally after decades admitted that Nafta was a disaster. No, it was more than that. It was a bold-faced lie. Hillary once supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership now she's not so sure...because the promises are lies.
The NYT has a lot of nerve to publish a commentary titled "When to Call a Lie a Lie."
The two candidates for the presidency are both liars. How about calling out both of them. Tell the public the truth. Both candidates are deceiving us and doing so knowingly.
Language is indeed a powerful tool. Apply it equally to both liars.
I don't believe that NYT truly understands the meaning of the word "lie". Hillary has finally after decades admitted that Nafta was a disaster. No, it was more than that. It was a bold-faced lie. Hillary once supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership now she's not so sure...because the promises are lies.
The NYT has a lot of nerve to publish a commentary titled "When to Call a Lie a Lie."
The two candidates for the presidency are both liars. How about calling out both of them. Tell the public the truth. Both candidates are deceiving us and doing so knowingly.
Language is indeed a powerful tool. Apply it equally to both liars.
3
A far more recent example, Jay, of a politician lying was Obama's statement that we all could keep our health insurance if we liked it, keep our doctor if we liked him, and the billions in cash shipped off to Iran was not ransom money.
It seems as if the Times has some problem itself in determining what the truth really is or is deliberately "lying" about the Obama administration's culpability.
It seems that the Times is using a double standard for the convenience of its agenda, and Ms. Spayd, the Public Editor, is buying that use and contribution to the continuance of the lies coming from the Times.
It seems as if the Times has some problem itself in determining what the truth really is or is deliberately "lying" about the Obama administration's culpability.
It seems that the Times is using a double standard for the convenience of its agenda, and Ms. Spayd, the Public Editor, is buying that use and contribution to the continuance of the lies coming from the Times.
1
You are quite wrong. At the time no one knew for sure what the net result of NAFTA was going to be in terms of jobs and "opportunities." So the use of the term "lie" is not warranted. You state that proponents of NAFTA deliberately lied, but you provide not one shred of evidence.
4
Phil Dauber Alameda, California-
Every business man and woman knew exactly what was going to happen! All of us. We knew that we couldn't compete with low overseas wages from get go. The evidence is that the government admitted that "some jobs would be displaced." They told us that new, high technology jobs would take the place of low wage jobs. There was a great deal of "selling" Nafata and all of it was lies and false promises. It was expected that jobs would be lost but the government misrepresented the enormous scale of the loss. We don't live better because we pay less.
Every business man and woman knew exactly what was going to happen! All of us. We knew that we couldn't compete with low overseas wages from get go. The evidence is that the government admitted that "some jobs would be displaced." They told us that new, high technology jobs would take the place of low wage jobs. There was a great deal of "selling" Nafata and all of it was lies and false promises. It was expected that jobs would be lost but the government misrepresented the enormous scale of the loss. We don't live better because we pay less.
1
Enough normalization of Trump! He is a a serial liar, an unscrupulous scam artist, a sociopathic bully, an insecure psychotic, and obviously totally unqualified to be dog catcher, let alone leader of the free world.
If the media keeps walking on eggs and equalizing the horse race he could end up winning the election - and you will be responsible. Start reporting!
If the media keeps walking on eggs and equalizing the horse race he could end up winning the election - and you will be responsible. Start reporting!
32
This is the first opinion of Ms. Spayd with which I agree fully, except that the terms "lie" and "liar" should be used sparingly.
The terms should be used when they are appropriate. It isn't often a matter of opinion that someone is lying. If someone says something untrue, knows it to be untrue because irrefutable evidence has been presented, and clearly intends to mislead, that person is a liar and should be so identified.
Donald Trump is a liar. This is really not in dispute. Good for the Times in saying so forthrightly.
The terms should be used when they are appropriate. It isn't often a matter of opinion that someone is lying. If someone says something untrue, knows it to be untrue because irrefutable evidence has been presented, and clearly intends to mislead, that person is a liar and should be so identified.
Donald Trump is a liar. This is really not in dispute. Good for the Times in saying so forthrightly.
14
The words "lie", "lying" and "liar" have just about lost all their salience and meaning when it comes to Mr. Trump. It might be thought helpful to point out clearly and in context when he lies, but it is too little, too late. Anyone who regularly reads the NYT already knows that Trump lies regularly and easily as a strategy, and few people who might actually vote for him read the NYT. It is as though many of us know the emperor has no clothes, and point it out daily in our comments, to little avail.
What is needed is action. Find a way to report on Trump which shuts off his microphone and his oxygen. Do it only once a week, for example, and merely give a list of his statements pointing out which are lies. Or report several times a day, as he would like, but merely list the statements and say "Another Lie" to each when applicable. But do continue your helpful background work on his scams and sleaze. Any honest broker like the NYT is otherwise hamstrung by the fascistic tactics of a man like this.
What is needed is action. Find a way to report on Trump which shuts off his microphone and his oxygen. Do it only once a week, for example, and merely give a list of his statements pointing out which are lies. Or report several times a day, as he would like, but merely list the statements and say "Another Lie" to each when applicable. But do continue your helpful background work on his scams and sleaze. Any honest broker like the NYT is otherwise hamstrung by the fascistic tactics of a man like this.
9
Definition: Lie; (noun) an intentionally false statement.
How do Trump's statements on President Obama's place of birth not qualify? What type of sophistic and linguistic gymnastics do you need to jump through not use the most concise and accurate word available to describe his words?
I think Ms. Spayd backed herself into a corner with her ridiculous "false equivalence" piece a week or so ago and can't find a way out. So, much like The Donald she doesn't know how to do anything other than double down.
If not, you might want to check on her academic background, because if she truly believes this stuff I find it impossible to believe she ever completed a degree in Journalism, or even English.
How do Trump's statements on President Obama's place of birth not qualify? What type of sophistic and linguistic gymnastics do you need to jump through not use the most concise and accurate word available to describe his words?
I think Ms. Spayd backed herself into a corner with her ridiculous "false equivalence" piece a week or so ago and can't find a way out. So, much like The Donald she doesn't know how to do anything other than double down.
If not, you might want to check on her academic background, because if she truly believes this stuff I find it impossible to believe she ever completed a degree in Journalism, or even English.
8
Yes, that's a good question.
"When to Call a Lie a Lie" or "bordering on false".
The Clinton Story You Didn’t Read Here
By Liz Spayd August 2, 2016
"As it turns out, Clinton’s contentions in the interview were misleading, bordering on false. " - bordering on false? Or to call a lie a lie?
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/hillary-clinton-fox-ema...
"When to Call a Lie a Lie" or "bordering on false".
The Clinton Story You Didn’t Read Here
By Liz Spayd August 2, 2016
"As it turns out, Clinton’s contentions in the interview were misleading, bordering on false. " - bordering on false? Or to call a lie a lie?
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/hillary-clinton-fox-ema...
2
Journalists have a duty, a sacred one, to report facts. When a candidate misrepresents factual reality, they are either dishonest or ignorant. Either way, the journalist has an obligation to point out that the candidate got the facts wrong.
This is so for at least two reasons.
First, where a candidate, or any other public official or public person, actually lies, then the journalist must call that as it is because lying undermines public trust in government, encourages confusion about the country's challenges and problems, and basically amounts to an effort to obtain public office by deceit. Ignorance also harms the public because it shows that a candidate or an elected official or a bureaucrat may not be qualified for the job that is sought or held.
Second, public awareness of politicians' errors is vital to a healthy democracy. Indeed, as FDR is reputed to have said, the most fundamental safeguard of our democracy is education. The press has a duty to advance that education - it is why it exists! If the press fails to assure that the public understands reality, as opposed to politicians' spinning of it or concealment of it, then our system will break. Government can only be accountable if knowledge is valued and facts are sacred.
The press cannot defensibly claim to be carrying out the responsibility that justifies the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press clause if it is going to refuse to call out politicians for dishonesty or ignorance on grounds of "balance."
This is so for at least two reasons.
First, where a candidate, or any other public official or public person, actually lies, then the journalist must call that as it is because lying undermines public trust in government, encourages confusion about the country's challenges and problems, and basically amounts to an effort to obtain public office by deceit. Ignorance also harms the public because it shows that a candidate or an elected official or a bureaucrat may not be qualified for the job that is sought or held.
Second, public awareness of politicians' errors is vital to a healthy democracy. Indeed, as FDR is reputed to have said, the most fundamental safeguard of our democracy is education. The press has a duty to advance that education - it is why it exists! If the press fails to assure that the public understands reality, as opposed to politicians' spinning of it or concealment of it, then our system will break. Government can only be accountable if knowledge is valued and facts are sacred.
The press cannot defensibly claim to be carrying out the responsibility that justifies the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press clause if it is going to refuse to call out politicians for dishonesty or ignorance on grounds of "balance."
8
Hear, hear!
I'm all for sparing use of the term "lie," but Trump lies constantly on live TV. So the networks have to constantly monitor his speech for whoppers. They don't always do it, allowing him to get away with propagating unchallenged falsehoods in verbal streams. They really need to start running a crawl to flash the lie alert as soon as it happens.
20
Maybe they could hire one of those Hollywood effects companies to make his nose lengthen on the fly.
8
Perhaps we can gain some perspective on when to call a lie a "lie."
When it was found that Brian Williams had - what shall we say, "exaggerated" the danger he found himself in while reporting, how did the Times and others describe his exaggeration? Did they call it a lie? We know that he lost his job as anchor at NBC.
When Hillary Clinton turned a bouquet of roses into sniper fire, did anybody call that a lie? Wasn't that as unambiguously a lie as anything could be? What has she lost as a consequence?
Or is she the beneficiary of some double standard?
When it was found that Brian Williams had - what shall we say, "exaggerated" the danger he found himself in while reporting, how did the Times and others describe his exaggeration? Did they call it a lie? We know that he lost his job as anchor at NBC.
When Hillary Clinton turned a bouquet of roses into sniper fire, did anybody call that a lie? Wasn't that as unambiguously a lie as anything could be? What has she lost as a consequence?
Or is she the beneficiary of some double standard?
5
Interesting you are going back to 2008 to label something Clinton said a lie. She immediately said that she misspoke, back in 2008, when it was pointed out to her that there was no sniper fire during a trip in 1996, 12 years earlier. She was in danger of sniper fire, there were snipers in the area, and pictures taken at the time show her in a flak jacket and helmet. It was brave for her to go there. http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Bosnia-a-war-zone-when-Hillary-vis...
3
Well, since the Washington Post gave her statement four Pinocchios back in 2008, the answer to your question about her is yes.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_ad...
But my favorite part is your rhetorical question at the end, similar to the scurrilous and improper "when did you stop beating your wife?" of cross-examination fame.
So we've got two false dichotomies in one post! The first is your equating one Clinton lie with the mindboggling, endless stream of truth-free blather issuing from Trump.
The second is your attempting to equate the candidates themselves by extension -- false because, as badly as you may feel about Clinton, she's an experienced professional politician, whereas Trump is a simply professional windbag.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_ad...
But my favorite part is your rhetorical question at the end, similar to the scurrilous and improper "when did you stop beating your wife?" of cross-examination fame.
So we've got two false dichotomies in one post! The first is your equating one Clinton lie with the mindboggling, endless stream of truth-free blather issuing from Trump.
The second is your attempting to equate the candidates themselves by extension -- false because, as badly as you may feel about Clinton, she's an experienced professional politician, whereas Trump is a simply professional windbag.
10
C. Richard, there's extensive data showing memory itself is not "fixed" in time like a photograph. It's more like a painting retouched over time. More recent events, details or stories are unconsciously superimposed, creating a composite.
Inaccurate memories are the norm, not the exception, but most of us are never "called" on our errors. Courts now recognize the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, and police methods are being updated so as not to "taint" witnesses.
There's no double standard. A deliberate attempt to deceive is "lying." Saying something you mistakenly *believe* to be true is "error." There's no evidence that Williams or Clinton *consciously* lied about what they remembered. When confronted with the truth, they acknowledged their memories were incorrect and apologized.
Likewise, if Trump incorrectly remembers an event in his long, busy life, we can't say he's "lying." However, if he keeps repeating the error after being shown evidence he is wrong, then he IS purposely lying. And if the issue has nothing to do with memory, but the invention of false narratives from whole cloth, then he certainly is "lying." And if he is apprised of the truth but doubles down on the lie and refuses to apologize, then he is a pathological liar.
For more on memory:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/18/health/lifeswork-loftus-memory-malleability/
Inaccurate memories are the norm, not the exception, but most of us are never "called" on our errors. Courts now recognize the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, and police methods are being updated so as not to "taint" witnesses.
There's no double standard. A deliberate attempt to deceive is "lying." Saying something you mistakenly *believe* to be true is "error." There's no evidence that Williams or Clinton *consciously* lied about what they remembered. When confronted with the truth, they acknowledged their memories were incorrect and apologized.
Likewise, if Trump incorrectly remembers an event in his long, busy life, we can't say he's "lying." However, if he keeps repeating the error after being shown evidence he is wrong, then he IS purposely lying. And if the issue has nothing to do with memory, but the invention of false narratives from whole cloth, then he certainly is "lying." And if he is apprised of the truth but doubles down on the lie and refuses to apologize, then he is a pathological liar.
For more on memory:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/18/health/lifeswork-loftus-memory-malleability/
6
This is a ridiculous article. Trump has said many things that he certainly knows are untrue - such as his lie that the NFL sent him a letter complaining about the debate schedule. The impression given here is that The Times bends over backwards to avoid calling him a liar, though the reporters there know he lies constantly. Who do they imagine is being served by their unwillingness to report the fact that he lies - other than Trump himself?
25
Trump has made so many statements that he knows are inaccurate or that he knows are based on zero factual information, and that he states deliberately, that the word "lie" can be applied quite often.
He even said that he uses "truthful exaggeration" to give a value for his wealth, which depends on his mood. C'mon. When a man states things that depend on his mood, those are clear, deliberate statements that are counterfactual and that are intended to mislead. In my book, that is a lie.
The number of such bald-faced statements made by Trump is enormous.
Mexico is sending us their rapists.
Mexico will pay for the wall.
Sen. Cruz's father was a co-conspirator in the Kennedy Assassination.
Many accusations about Hillary Clinton that are clearly in the realm of projection based on Trump's knowledge of his own activities.
Trump's comments about his business failures.
Trump's comments about Trump University.
How long a list do you want?
To assert that Trump is a serial liar is hardly a stretching of the truth.
Trump IS a serial liar.
He even said that he uses "truthful exaggeration" to give a value for his wealth, which depends on his mood. C'mon. When a man states things that depend on his mood, those are clear, deliberate statements that are counterfactual and that are intended to mislead. In my book, that is a lie.
The number of such bald-faced statements made by Trump is enormous.
Mexico is sending us their rapists.
Mexico will pay for the wall.
Sen. Cruz's father was a co-conspirator in the Kennedy Assassination.
Many accusations about Hillary Clinton that are clearly in the realm of projection based on Trump's knowledge of his own activities.
Trump's comments about his business failures.
Trump's comments about Trump University.
How long a list do you want?
To assert that Trump is a serial liar is hardly a stretching of the truth.
Trump IS a serial liar.
34
It's pretty clear that Ms. Spayd is in over her head, and that's really tragic in an election year like this one.
Let me try to restate what you should have said: not "use the word 'lie' rarely" but how about: "use the word 'lie' only after applying strict scrutiny to the facts of the matter". Isn't that the point? Not whether you unnerve readers (or candidates) by the number of times you use a term? But that it be carefully vetted in it's usage?
Sheesh . . . I didn't even go to J school.
Let me try to restate what you should have said: not "use the word 'lie' rarely" but how about: "use the word 'lie' only after applying strict scrutiny to the facts of the matter". Isn't that the point? Not whether you unnerve readers (or candidates) by the number of times you use a term? But that it be carefully vetted in it's usage?
Sheesh . . . I didn't even go to J school.
25
If a lie is an intentionally false statement, then spin is a well-cultivated garden of lies, and should be labeled as such. Editors seem to have forgotten that the only valuable thing they have to sell is an honest try at the truth.
14
Amen! How about the use of the terms "pathological liar" when discussing Trump since he lies repeatedly?
16
No, That was what Safire, an opinion writer of the NYT in the 90's, called Hillary.
Perhaps those who have discomfort with the word "lie" might join in developing a vocabulary that means "lie" but is not that specific word.
Suggested possibilities include "incorrect," "not true," "wrong," "no basis in fact," "prevarication," "fabrication," "false," and maybe just plain old "are you nuts?"
Get these responses ready for Monday night's Debate!
Suggested possibilities include "incorrect," "not true," "wrong," "no basis in fact," "prevarication," "fabrication," "false," and maybe just plain old "are you nuts?"
Get these responses ready for Monday night's Debate!
4
Yes, Trump's a liar. And Clinton's a congenital liar, as William Safire said. Sometimes they lie about inconsequential stuff, sometimes important things. Both would probably lie to us from the Oval Office about important issues that affect our lives. And these two are the best-qualified candidates for the most important job in our country? O Tempora, O Mores! Face it and move on...nothing to see here.
3
Actually, that article by Safire made several allegations against her that were proven subsequently to be untrue, and he never retracted his accusations (so does that make him a liar?). Politifact has determined her to be one of the most truth-telling candidates they've ever tracked, and THE most truth-telling candidate in this election.
5
This writer's opinion notwithstanding, Trump has left a long trail of in arguable lies for any responsible press organization to compile into a list and post to its front page between now and November 8. If the public are not reminded of Trump's lying character, in this 4-candidate race, Donald Trump the showman could well end up in the White House with a minority of Americans believing what he says and that could be a catastrophe for our country.
9
So did Clinton "lie" when she said she only had one Blackberry and the FBI said she had 13? Did she "lie" when she stated she never sent or received classified emails and the FBI says she did?
The Time's definition of a "lie" seems to follow whom is saying it. Has the term ever been used in a story about Clinton's known and proven "lies"?
The Time's definition of a "lie" seems to follow whom is saying it. Has the term ever been used in a story about Clinton's known and proven "lies"?
4
No!!!!!!!!
A little bit late on this, but better late than never! I read a cynical but true analysis that says that in politics, it is okay to tell big lies, but the media will punish you for small, easily-verifiable ones. After all, big lies require in-depth research, time, and reporting. The problem I have is that even Trump's big lies, such as his claiming to care for working-class people and his being a successful businessman, are easily fact-checked and debunked. There's just no excuse for not doing it, except that the media has become addicted to the advertising revenue this guy is bringing them.
7
I am thrilled that the Times is using that word in this case. I agree that it should be used very sparingly and only when the facts are clear and the lie is intentional. The birther lie clearly qualifies. I wonder if Trump got the idea from his buddy Putin. The Big Lie in the 20th century got its start in the Soviet Union. Read 1984 -- again!
7
His fellow Democrat Bob Kerry described President Bill Clinton as "an unusually good liar." There are some who say Hillary is just as brazen a
liar, but not an especially good one.
liar, but not an especially good one.
2
Trump is such a rampant liar, and hurls that appelation at everyone else which such abandon, that calling him that would have absolutely no impact on him, like throwing a match into the sun. It's a wonder it has any emotional impact left. It simply is a demonstrable fact, when he has spent the past umpteen years undermining the legitimacy of our first black President, and then has the nerve to say "Hillary started it". (Don't recall a birth certificate being asked of any previous Presidential candidates.)
12
Therefore this FACT: Trump is a liar. Case closed.
11
When a lie is a lie, why not call it a lie? When Trump is clearly lying, he's a liar. How is that partisan? It's honest reporting. Stop mincing words NYT.
16
In the case of the birther foolishness, I think The Times was entirely justified in calling it a lie. Context is important. Trump continued his assertion, for many years, in the face of overwhelming and irrefutable evidence, and in the process gave himself political visibility. Consequently, it was a purposeful deception or, according to a dictionary definition, “an intentional false statement."
I frankly wouldn’t mind seeing The Times and other news outlets use the word more often for politicians of all parties and persuasions. Then, hopefully, the amount of lying would be reduced and some trust in government could be restored. What I find ironic is Trump supporters say they are for him because “he tells it like it is” when, in fact, he tells more lies, with greater ease, than any candidate in memory. At least when Mrs. Clinton lies, her supporters agonize and wrestle with their consciences.
I frankly wouldn’t mind seeing The Times and other news outlets use the word more often for politicians of all parties and persuasions. Then, hopefully, the amount of lying would be reduced and some trust in government could be restored. What I find ironic is Trump supporters say they are for him because “he tells it like it is” when, in fact, he tells more lies, with greater ease, than any candidate in memory. At least when Mrs. Clinton lies, her supporters agonize and wrestle with their consciences.
10
I feel like the editor is overstating the difficulty of separating lies from opinions or mere "spin." Is it REALLY so difficult or do we collectively give our candidates too much credit?
As Spayd notes, a lie hinges on intent. Put plainly, any speaker that makes a statement they know at the time to be incorrect or untrue, is lying. One can take the cynical position "everybody lies," but that just reconfirms my point. The only real variable is frequency.
For instance, if Trump says he cannot release his tax returns he is lying. There is no mistake or misunderstanding. Why is it so inconceivable that he would lie to avoid scrutiny? The IRS has gone so far as to confirm that they have not placed any restriction on the information in his returns and their audit for the years in question have concluded.
As another example, Clinton's infamous tale of being under sniper fire was a lie contradicted in every way. The same standards may be applied to her public statements regarding her servers. I have not heard anyone say the FBI is lying and fabricated facts to contradict Clinton's, yet her false public statements are described as mere mistakes. Barring massive memory loss, those statements amount to lies. It's true that not all lies are crimes. That said, all lies ARE, in fact, LIES (not mistakes).
From anyone but a politician, the flimsy "regrets," "flaws" and "mistakes" would simply be seen for what they are... lies. At a MINIMUM they would cause deep mistrust.
As Spayd notes, a lie hinges on intent. Put plainly, any speaker that makes a statement they know at the time to be incorrect or untrue, is lying. One can take the cynical position "everybody lies," but that just reconfirms my point. The only real variable is frequency.
For instance, if Trump says he cannot release his tax returns he is lying. There is no mistake or misunderstanding. Why is it so inconceivable that he would lie to avoid scrutiny? The IRS has gone so far as to confirm that they have not placed any restriction on the information in his returns and their audit for the years in question have concluded.
As another example, Clinton's infamous tale of being under sniper fire was a lie contradicted in every way. The same standards may be applied to her public statements regarding her servers. I have not heard anyone say the FBI is lying and fabricated facts to contradict Clinton's, yet her false public statements are described as mere mistakes. Barring massive memory loss, those statements amount to lies. It's true that not all lies are crimes. That said, all lies ARE, in fact, LIES (not mistakes).
From anyone but a politician, the flimsy "regrets," "flaws" and "mistakes" would simply be seen for what they are... lies. At a MINIMUM they would cause deep mistrust.
3
While "knowing that it's not true" is important, it is too limiting, especially with candidate Trump. That's how he gets away with his smirky "but I didn't *know* it wasn't true."
What about: if Trump should have know his statement was false with reasonable effort (read: Google), it's a lie. I mean, the guy said he didn't know who David Duke was. Really?
What about: if Trump should have know his statement was false with reasonable effort (read: Google), it's a lie. I mean, the guy said he didn't know who David Duke was. Really?
It is true that the word 'lie' is thrown around recklessly. If the matter in dispute is one of opinion, and/or the speaker believes what he's saying is true, is not deliberately intending to mislead the audience into accepting a demonstrable untruth, then even if what he says is not true, and however strongly you disagree with it, it is not a lie.
That said: Trump lies. He lies the way you and I breathe. He works in lies the way Jackson Pollock worked in paint. However, it can be difficult to pin him down to deliberate lies.(In part this is because he rarely speaks in full sentences with specifics, but rather in disjointed phrases: 'It'll be great, yuuge, you're gonna love it, millions of jobs, we're gonna build a wall, really big, a big wall' - what the hell did he just say? but everyone cheers.)
The 'birther' issue is one where only the blindest partisan can fail to admit he has lied, flagrantly, repeatedly, almost laughably (in his claim Clinton began the issue). At least this once the NYT did not call a spade 'arguably an excavation implement'.
That said: Trump lies. He lies the way you and I breathe. He works in lies the way Jackson Pollock worked in paint. However, it can be difficult to pin him down to deliberate lies.(In part this is because he rarely speaks in full sentences with specifics, but rather in disjointed phrases: 'It'll be great, yuuge, you're gonna love it, millions of jobs, we're gonna build a wall, really big, a big wall' - what the hell did he just say? but everyone cheers.)
The 'birther' issue is one where only the blindest partisan can fail to admit he has lied, flagrantly, repeatedly, almost laughably (in his claim Clinton began the issue). At least this once the NYT did not call a spade 'arguably an excavation implement'.
22
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"
7
You CAN keep your doctor - but you might have to pay out of pocket. We know what he meant, though and it was sheer ignorance. Obama apparently didn't understand the nature of insurer-provider contracting. Doctors don't HAVE to take your insurance. and Insurers don't HAVE to pay outrageous doctor prices.
5
How can a blatant falsehood be called an opinion as Kenneth Christiansen seems to suggest? This truly defies logic. To say Obama was not born in the U.S. is false, someone who perpetuates the claim is lying. What precisely is wrong with the word lie? Many lies about human beings have been told throughout history that have permitted atrocities to happen. Lies about the humanity of slaves permitted slavery. Lies about the humanity of colonial subjects permitted subjugation and the denial of rights. Lies about indigenous peoples permitted genocides. In our wildest imaginations can we simply call these opinions? Please, Mr. Christian, give me a break.
23
Hallelujah! Finally...the New York Times is starting to get it. Not only is it time to use the word "lie" for the deliberate falsehoods emerging from Donald Trump's lips, but it's time to point the fact that it is a very new and very very disturbing phenomenon that the GOP's candidate for the Presidency of the United States regularly tells lies.
18
What about Trump's claim that climate change is a hoax? Calling anthropogenic climate change (AGW) a hoax is a blatant lie. How about spending some time calling out that lie? Or do you claim that the claim that calling AGW a hoax does not fit your definition of a lie? Oh, that's right; you think that the Times shouldn't use the word lie. Lies are partisan – doesn't this formulation suggest that facts, such as the evidence for AGW, are partisan? I guess I'm now understanding your approach to the coverage of AGW -- science, laws of physics -- partisan. That is, you seem to be saying that reporting on AGW might "look" partisan, and you must keep up appearances (of not looking partisan; though you really are if you decide to marginalize AGW coverage). "Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive!"
7
Will the Times be reporting on the origin of the birther movement? Did Trump make it up, or did people associated with the Clinton campaign in 2008 raise the question of Obama's birthplace?
5
Even if you believe Hillary's campaign "raised" the issue in 2008, she clearly is not the one who championed that lie for the past 6 years. Get a perspective.
7
The Washington Post's opinion writer, Dana Milbank, used the phrase "debased" to characterize the performances of Christie, Conway and Pence when they denied Trump had started the Birther Movement, but instead "finished" it, atttributing its origins to Clinton. Is that any worse than calling them "liars?"
5
Fair and balanced.
Trump Lies.
Clinton fibs.
Trump Lies.
Clinton fibs.
2
If a candidate lies, it should be called as such. If a candidate lies so serially and pathologically that he *is* a 24/7 perambulating lie, then he should be labeled as such. This is the stuff of news, not editorials. It is news about lying. Calk it what it is. For my money, The New York Times should maintain a running, daily front page tally of candidate lies, assuming there would be any space left for other news.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
16
I think you are on to something. There should be a front-page box score that compares all four candidates and it should show the number of deliberate lies, unintentional falsehoods, and ignorant statements that misrepresent facts that were told that day and cumulatively during the campaign.
Not every false statement is a lie, because the person may not have intended to deceive when he or she made the statement, but even an innocent factual error casts light on a person's qualification for high office.
The press has a duty to inform the public. Reluctance to hold every politician accountable for all mistakes, whether intentional or not, is neglect of that duty.
Not every false statement is a lie, because the person may not have intended to deceive when he or she made the statement, but even an innocent factual error casts light on a person's qualification for high office.
The press has a duty to inform the public. Reluctance to hold every politician accountable for all mistakes, whether intentional or not, is neglect of that duty.
2
Certainly Trump lied about our President's place of birth.
And using "lie" too often on the news page will dilute its impact.
But when a candidate lies with such amazing frequency over such a wide range of topics -- not stretching the truth, but breaking it -- how should it be reported?
Solve the problem by keeping a running list on the front page with the Trump lies listed. The whoppers and the little ones. Every one. Until it swallows the whole front page.
And using "lie" too often on the news page will dilute its impact.
But when a candidate lies with such amazing frequency over such a wide range of topics -- not stretching the truth, but breaking it -- how should it be reported?
Solve the problem by keeping a running list on the front page with the Trump lies listed. The whoppers and the little ones. Every one. Until it swallows the whole front page.
23
"I think The Times should use this term rarely." This comes across as if Ms. Spayd believes The Times should have an arbitrary quota system in place, like a company refusing to promote women beyond some token minimal number, or a country club admitting only one or two minority members as a kind of pre-emptive appeasement. No. Promote and admit based on merit and eligibility. And use the word "lie" whenever it is warranted.
17
The Times timidity in using the words "lie," "liar," and "inveterate liar" when reporting on Trumpo's numerous intentionally untrue statements since announcing his candidacy, is definitely a factor in his rise to seeming legitimacy as a presidential candidate and the false equivalency between his qualifications and Clinton's.
17
It was a factual statement, indeed no mere opinion, to brand Trump's birther nonsense as a lie. To which he added another lie, or three; though I believe they were largely labeled 'falsehoods.' OK. But "stretching the truth" (which also made a recent appearance) is itself a stretching of the truth about Trump. The so called loaded language debate is challenged by this man. He has already been provided way too much cover of normalization. It is vital that the media call his "lies as deep into the throat unto the lungs" to paraphrase the bard.
28
How often the word "lie" is enlisted should depend on how many lies are flying around at any given time in a matter of public interest. It shouldn't be used when something's not really a lie, but when there really IS a lie, it's accurate reporting. Lots of lying? Then the word would come up a lot. Just like if there were lots of shootings or something.
10
The use of the words "lie" and "pants on fire" in fact checking is unfortunate. "Correct" and "incorrect" might serve better. Presumably the press would have no qualms about reporting that a candidate was consistently incorrect.
5
For a statement to be correct or incorrect you have to assume good faith on the part of the speaker - incorrect implies an innocent mistake or a poor choice of words. But to repeatedly say something you know to be utterly false is lying. I think it was Ted Cruz who described Trump as a pathological liar; if so that may have been the most accurate (and maybe only true) thing he said in his entire campaign. For the press to give a pass to a candidate for any office who lies with such ease and facility, with such total disregard for the consequences, would reduce it to irrelevance.
8
"Incorrect" simply means that a statement is not correct factually without any judgment as to the character of the person making it. One problem with "lie" and "truth" or "right" and "wrong" is that they are pejorative terms. "Correct" and "incorrect" are neutral, or at least more neutral. That is not to say that The Times should not label a deliberately incorrect statement a "lie." But it does facilitate reporting every error made by a candidate.
Absurd. Absurd. Absurd. "Lie" is a word all us english speakers know how to use. Why has the NYT to give some alternate meaning? Use the word "lie" when somebody lies. This is disturbing; if I cannot trust the paper, why should I subscribe?
15
In your second to last paragraph you state the following about calling out lies of politicians: " It feels ... as if you’re playing the referee in frivolous political disputes."
It is the job of the media to play referee, and there is NOTHING frivolous about Donald Trump's repeated lies. If you don't have the emotional fortitude to do your job, I would suggest a new line of work.
It is the job of the media to play referee, and there is NOTHING frivolous about Donald Trump's repeated lies. If you don't have the emotional fortitude to do your job, I would suggest a new line of work.
47
The Times should most definitely use the term "lie" rarely. Unfortunately, Donald Trump makes that impossible. In addition to the lies mentioned here, Mr. Trump continues to lie when he says that he was opposed to the Iraq war from the very beginning. Reporting a lie as a lie isn't opinion. It's fact.
40
In an ideal political world with politicians who have ethics the Times wouldn't have to use the word "lies" any more than rarely.
Donald Trump is not an ideal politician and he has no ethics. The Times should feel free to use the term "lies" as often as Mr Trump lies.
Donald Trump is not an ideal politician and he has no ethics. The Times should feel free to use the term "lies" as often as Mr Trump lies.
11
Courageous journalists using "best practices" on news pages do not have a quota for the use of the word(s) "lie or lies". Use the word "lie" as often as it is necessary.
52
Concur with the need, in News Media parlance, to call things what they are; in this case, that Trump is a repeat offender against the truth, hence, a LIAR. A liar with a straight face. Not only that, he exaggerates his opponent's flaws to a ridiculous degree, while at the same time, like any shameless thug, overlooking his own crookedness and deceit, accusing his opponent of the same things he has been proven guilty of. It seems as though this demagogue is impervious to shame by cheating others, thus far a consistent 'value' of his bullying behavior. Trump is a pathological liar, and ought to be suspect whenever he opens his mouth, as he does it with such a flair.
21
Ms. Spayd: While picking words, perhaps you can explain or at least comment on Clinton's statements re: asking for and receiving permission for a home-based email server, both statements which were categorically labeled by the Inspector General of the State Department as untrue. Note that both Tom Friedman and Nick Kristof called them "fibs," as also appeared in the current issue of the New Yorker. Perhaps you can discuss the journalistic attitude toward "lies" and "fibs."
To me, Clinton's lies about that issue are much more serious than Trump's nutty birther ... untruths, directly relating to national security and respect for established procedures.
To me, Clinton's lies about that issue are much more serious than Trump's nutty birther ... untruths, directly relating to national security and respect for established procedures.
5
To me, GWB's deletion of 22 MILLION emails is way more important than Hillary's use of private server. Which anybody who cared should have called her on during her first month as SecState. Nobody did. We got to read the emails, unlike the 22 MILLION that were deleted. Get a perspective.
2
Trump supporters conveniently forget the Bush lies that led us to the catastrophic horror show that was the Iraq war.
A bit different than lying about one's email server. Can Republicans use even a fraction of their brains to look at history and gain some perspective?
It saddens me that so many Americans have no capacity for critical thinking of any kind.
A bit different than lying about one's email server. Can Republicans use even a fraction of their brains to look at history and gain some perspective?
It saddens me that so many Americans have no capacity for critical thinking of any kind.
1
Killroy and Sam Kanter seem to be arguing now that since Hillary's lies aren't as bad as Bush's (Cheney's?) lies we should ignore that she is a liar? If you noticed, the comparison was between Clinton's and Trump's lies. Take your own advice, gentlemen.
For the record - I intend to write in Bernie Sanders in this election - and please spare me the tired "throw away your vote."
For the record - I intend to write in Bernie Sanders in this election - and please spare me the tired "throw away your vote."
Not to be overly legalistic, but "lie" is a conclusion that a false statement was made with an intent to deceive. Sometimes it is used to mean a statement made with knowledge that it was not true. Either way, the word :"lie" crosses over into an assertion of the speaker's state of mind. While I know printed words are at a premium, what is wrong with the pattern along the lines of "the speaker asserted X," followed by "X is not true" or some wimilar construction?
It seems to me the difficulty is in determining motivation or actual knowledge of the falsehood, not whether the fact asserted is demonstrably false.
It seems to me the difficulty is in determining motivation or actual knowledge of the falsehood, not whether the fact asserted is demonstrably false.
6
I too found the "condition" of "intentionality" as a sham. Why is 'repeating it for years' in the face of overwhelming facts the only time the paper will see a suggestion of a deliberate attempt? How many times does a person have to repeat a lie in the face of facts, whether "overwhelming" or not, for it to be deliberate and deserve the "lie" label? With this particular candidate, because he cannot and will not answer questions about the bases for his opinions with fact ("people say . . ."), I submit that this "condition" is too strict.
5
Why should The Times care whether it uses "lie" rarely or frequently? Shouldn't the real concern be whether it uses the word accurately? If it does, then let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise, the paper's readers are poorly served, and a candidate who lies a lot escapes appropriate public notice. Indeed, once The Times uses "lie" at all, its non-use carries the implication that The Times considers statements not so labeled either true or disputable.
37
Bravo! Exactly.
If someone is obviously lying and you don't call them on it, you are helping them lie. Simple. Journalists' go-to excuse, "this election isn't like any other," might also mean that they need to do things differently.
18
The problem is that a lie is a factually false statement that the speaker, at the time, knew to be untrue. Absent unequivocal proof of the Trump's subjective intent, the Times' use of the term "lie" merely represents the Times' opinion as to Trump's subjective state of mind. The Times should stick to facts, and let readers draw their own inferences as to Trump's state of mind, which readers can do equally as well as the Times can (and with less loss of credibility).
2
Obama released his birth certificate in 2011 in a very public manner, yet Trump continued to make birther statements up until last Thursday. He knew the truth yet continued to spread false information for five years.
2
Ms. Spayd, This is simply not that complicated and you should seriously get your head out of your academic journalistic theory. When a reporter calls a lie a lie he or she is telling the truth not slanting it. When you don't use the word "lie" or its first cousins "falsehood," "falsity," or "untruth" to characterize what is, in fact, an actual lie, you are AT BEST misleading your readers by suggesting that there is a chance that the statement was true. There is no chance that "Barack Obama might not have been born in the United States" is a true statement. Therefore, it is correctly characterized even by the New York Times as a LIE. And you are hiding rather than disclosing the reality of the facts when you characterize it as an opposing point of view or a dispute or whatever other mealy mouthed words you think should be used instead of what is, an actual lie.
17
Bravo Barbara. Excellent points
2
We all know what a lie is by the time we are 5 years old. Later we learn what deceit means; misrepresenting the truth. As Americans we should be very experienced with lies and deceit since we are over exposed to it everyday by politicians, institutions, corporations, religions and cable news, etc.. It is this ether that defines the United States today. Unfortunately the NYT is contributing to the negative ether by trying to avoid the 3 letter word even though its readers are looking for a 5 letter word: TRUTH. It is the NYT's duty to represent the truth not to sort of represent or some what represent the truth.
11
Given the number of lies Trump has told over the last several months, perhaps he should not be given the benefit of the doubt?
12
At a time when the mainstream media has legitimized bad science, conspiracy theories, and other forms of outlandish argument by bending over backwards in the name of "balanced reporting," calling out a lie for what it is strikes me as a refreshing return to rational analysis. However, the word "lie" should be used sparingly, since it implies willful deception that goes beyond simple misguided conviction, the latter being such an easily generated product of Internet websites and one-sided media sources.
Better at times to use phrases like "poorly informed," "demonstrably false," "widely rejected," or "unsubstantiated by credible data or studies", and then inform readers of the generally accepted facts, particularly if there is no supporting evidence of willful falsehood. Regardless, it is long past time for giving equal time to patently untrue or clearly unsupported viewpoints, no matter how strongly held.
Better at times to use phrases like "poorly informed," "demonstrably false," "widely rejected," or "unsubstantiated by credible data or studies", and then inform readers of the generally accepted facts, particularly if there is no supporting evidence of willful falsehood. Regardless, it is long past time for giving equal time to patently untrue or clearly unsupported viewpoints, no matter how strongly held.
9
Good lord:
"That said, I think The Times should use this term rarely. Its power in political warfare has so freighted the word that its mere appearance on news pages, however factually accurate, feels partisan. It feels, as Ryan said, as if you’re playing the referee in frivolous political disputes."
First, the word can and should be used as often as necessary. That it be used "rarely" suggests an arbitrary application which is itself at odds with the truth. Second, the newspaper should concern itself with factual accuracy, not with the feelings of journalists and their editors. If the truth feels partisan, so be it. Third, and this follows from the second, if presenting the facts as they are feels like playing the referee, perhaps the paper is making a game of something that is not a game.
"That said, I think The Times should use this term rarely. Its power in political warfare has so freighted the word that its mere appearance on news pages, however factually accurate, feels partisan. It feels, as Ryan said, as if you’re playing the referee in frivolous political disputes."
First, the word can and should be used as often as necessary. That it be used "rarely" suggests an arbitrary application which is itself at odds with the truth. Second, the newspaper should concern itself with factual accuracy, not with the feelings of journalists and their editors. If the truth feels partisan, so be it. Third, and this follows from the second, if presenting the facts as they are feels like playing the referee, perhaps the paper is making a game of something that is not a game.
34
The NYT used to publish "all the news that's fit to print". Lies are not news necessarily. Lies by a presidential candidate, intended to deceive voters into believing they are going to receive benefits from a candidate's policies completely undermine the election process and democracy. Most voters simply did not have the time to parse the candidates statements for truth or lies. That is a particular responsibility of the media which has let down the public in this election. In short, a fearless newspaper would label a material lie a lie and try to investigate the candidate's intent in asserting that lie for the benefit of its readers. One might argue that spin, exaggeration, etc. are irrelevant as news and are not fit to print at all.
20
Nice start, Ms Spayd. But you've stepped onto a slippery slope. If you apply this reasoning too consistently, you'll be calling for Bush, Cheney, et al to be in the dock for war crimes.
7
"When to call a lie a lie"
Well it is simple. When a Republican lies. the NYT will call it a lie. When a Democrat lies, the NYT will not be called a lie.
What's so complicated?
Well it is simple. When a Republican lies. the NYT will call it a lie. When a Democrat lies, the NYT will not be called a lie.
What's so complicated?
5
Refusing to identify lies for what they are is not fair and it is not balanced. Mark Twain got it right - "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Unfortunately The Times seems to have been too long barefooted.
48
So Ms. Clinton can state clearly there were NO classified emails on her private server and then be contradicted by the director of the FBI (there were hundreds), yet the NYT only uses 'lies' for Mr. Trump. Any doubt who the NYT supports?
7
Are you saying that Trump has never lied during this campaign?
6
The FBI spent a year digging through emails and found a few that had pieces of classified information within them that had been classified at the time it was sent (most were classified after the event). No one reads the whole of a forwarded email thread; just as much as is necessary. She obviously didn't initiate emails with information she knew to be classified or the FBI would not have let her off (if you can call publicly smearing someone you can't make a case against a let off). So it comes down to whether she knew that those few emails contained classified information somewhere within them, which no one knows.
It wasn't very smart to say there definitely wasn't any classified information on the server, since she had no way to know without doing what the FBI did. That certainly makes her a bad politician (a better one would have added "to the best of my knowledge") but whether she was lying is a matter of opinion. On the other hand Trump lies regularly, knowing that he is lying, and the lies are obvious. That's the difference.
It wasn't very smart to say there definitely wasn't any classified information on the server, since she had no way to know without doing what the FBI did. That certainly makes her a bad politician (a better one would have added "to the best of my knowledge") but whether she was lying is a matter of opinion. On the other hand Trump lies regularly, knowing that he is lying, and the lies are obvious. That's the difference.
6
Are you arguing, PJ, that Hillary Clinton was unaware of what the e-mails to her said?
Really?
With that you seem to be making the argument that she was ignorant of the day-to-day work of her own office...
And, you are supporting someone that willfully ignorant to be President of the United States?
Really?
With that you seem to be making the argument that she was ignorant of the day-to-day work of her own office...
And, you are supporting someone that willfully ignorant to be President of the United States?
1
Thank you for this article, it is well-nuanced. I particularly appreciate how it addresses the position of one reader whose point I had not considered but find quite persuasive, i.e., that the term "lie" must be used rarely and carefully to avoid an appearance of partiality, even when all facts support it. The editorial page can use it til the cows come home, but the front-page standard is not the same, as it shouldn't be.
2
PE paraphrasing Ryan: "Intentionality is important — in the case of Trump and birtherism, he repeated the lie for years, ..."
You can't use the word "lie" when defining the word "lie". Ryan is committing the fallacy of circularity.
You can't use the word "lie" when defining the word "lie". Ryan is committing the fallacy of circularity.
2
I would that NYT considers the source when deciding what to call a lie. Sometimes there is spin, sometimes there is a one-off. But sometimes people make it their modus operandi to lie their way to any goal or through any difficulty, and when these people have identified themselves through multiple demonstrable lies, then they need to be called out each and every time.
If normal decent people don't hold the serial liars accountable, then we will have become complicit in the lie. All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing, and all that.
Yes there are professional journalistic standards. But there are also fundamental "good citizen" standards which should *ahem* trump them when circumstances warrant.
If normal decent people don't hold the serial liars accountable, then we will have become complicit in the lie. All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing, and all that.
Yes there are professional journalistic standards. But there are also fundamental "good citizen" standards which should *ahem* trump them when circumstances warrant.
8
Ms. Spayd suggests that the word "lie" should only be used rarely, even if it is "factually accurate," since it "feels partisan" and as if you are "playing the referee." Here's a radical proposal: rather than making judgments based on your "feelings," why not simply apply the three conditions for lying that are outlined in this article? If one or both candidates are found repeatedly lying according to those criteria then the word "lie" should be used frequently. If the candidates rarely lie by those criteria then "lie" should be used rarely. End of story.
Look, it is often suggested that acts of terrorism benefit Trump over Clinton. Does that mean if there is a wave of terrorism you will refrain from reporting it since it might appear partisan to do so?
I wouldn't have thought that allowing the truth to dictate what you report would be a novel principle.
Look, it is often suggested that acts of terrorism benefit Trump over Clinton. Does that mean if there is a wave of terrorism you will refrain from reporting it since it might appear partisan to do so?
I wouldn't have thought that allowing the truth to dictate what you report would be a novel principle.
28
Ms. Spayd,
I see that there is a "NYT Pick" among the readers' comments.
And it is a strange one: "Amazing! When I read the title, "When to Call a Lie a Lie", I just assumed you were talking about Hillary."
Ms Spayd, when your predecessor was departing, readers responded with concerns about the job, and listed areas that needed to change. Many cited reform of the comments section, and noted the "NYT Picks" as something that needed to be eliminated. Yet here, we see that it has been added to the comment section for the public editor's blog, which was never included in the past.
Instead of listing their own "picks", Times reporters- and editors- should, instead read carefully, and take to heart, the sentiments of Times readers, and particularly those comments considered important by readers, the "Readers' Picks."
Did you specifically choose this comment to highlight as a "NYT Pick"? If so, please explain to your readers why you are now sifting through readers comments to highlight what you find palatable, instead of accepting and taking to heart what readers are telling you are their sentiments.
I see that there is a "NYT Pick" among the readers' comments.
And it is a strange one: "Amazing! When I read the title, "When to Call a Lie a Lie", I just assumed you were talking about Hillary."
Ms Spayd, when your predecessor was departing, readers responded with concerns about the job, and listed areas that needed to change. Many cited reform of the comments section, and noted the "NYT Picks" as something that needed to be eliminated. Yet here, we see that it has been added to the comment section for the public editor's blog, which was never included in the past.
Instead of listing their own "picks", Times reporters- and editors- should, instead read carefully, and take to heart, the sentiments of Times readers, and particularly those comments considered important by readers, the "Readers' Picks."
Did you specifically choose this comment to highlight as a "NYT Pick"? If so, please explain to your readers why you are now sifting through readers comments to highlight what you find palatable, instead of accepting and taking to heart what readers are telling you are their sentiments.
54
The comment selected as an NYT pick was done so accidentally. The public editor's policy of not selecting comments as NYT picks is still in effect. Our apologies for the confusion.
11
Thanks for clarification. It did seem accidental. But aside from the accident of including the category 'NYT picks' on a public editor column, could you please explain the selection process that placed that comment there instead of with the other comments? Was that due to the new robot-assisted method announced today, or was human selection used to choose that comment for the category? Thank you.
1
Thank you, Mr. Gershkovich, for this response.
But perhaps now that you have responded to this comment, you and Ms Spayd could also respond to questions that you and Ms Spayd have yet to address:
When will the public editor address calls for reform of the comment section?
When will Ms Spayd call for the elimination of the "NYT Picks" from other articles?
When will Ms Spayd finally take The Times to task for its outrageous slanted coverage of Bernie Sanders?
When will the public editor respond to the pointed criticisms of Times readers regarding Ms Spayd's views on "false equivalency", which generated more than a thousand comments, most in outrage?
We're waiting.
But perhaps now that you have responded to this comment, you and Ms Spayd could also respond to questions that you and Ms Spayd have yet to address:
When will the public editor address calls for reform of the comment section?
When will Ms Spayd call for the elimination of the "NYT Picks" from other articles?
When will Ms Spayd finally take The Times to task for its outrageous slanted coverage of Bernie Sanders?
When will the public editor respond to the pointed criticisms of Times readers regarding Ms Spayd's views on "false equivalency", which generated more than a thousand comments, most in outrage?
We're waiting.
3
Like any other sourced information, if something Mr. Trump says is provable as untrue, and you're able to verify that through your normal protocol for verification, and he keeps repeating it, then he's lying. Stop dancing around this and using euphemisms. Mr. Trump is a serial liar. Call him out on it. Again and again and again.
53
Words matter. For all the synonyms for "lie" (untruth, falsehood, fabrication, deception, etc.) the media loves to use the softest of the bunch (misstatement, exaggeration, mislead, etc.) to shield itself from accusations of bias. That may be well and good in a normal campaign with a normal candidate, but "normal" can't be applied here. The media should have caught on 18 months ago, and media analysts will have a heyday figuring out why it didn't pivot when it could have made a difference. We'll see if it's now too little too late. Trump is a serial liar who uses propaganda as well or better than any murderous authoritarian of the past. He turns every accusation against himself into a counter-attack, shamelessly trumpets conspiracy theories, lies about statistics, lies about minorities, and states that Republicans are the dumbest voters. Yet most media can't summon the courage to label his lies as lies. Instead, it's been treating Trump with "boys will be boys" (white) kid gloves, like a joke instead of a threat, and abdicating its responsibility to present the facts in context. Meanwhile "Make America Great Again" resonates among the poor and uneducated with the same deadly impact of the Southern Strategy and the white supremacy of Reconstruction. Make that connection, NYTimes, and stop dancing around the edges afraid to tell the truth.
14
"That said, I think The Times should use this term rarely."
You do realize that this stand is huge favor to Trump, a man without any shame about lying loudly and constantly? It is a "get out of jail free card" that he can count on a timorous press to give him every time.
You do realize that this stand is huge favor to Trump, a man without any shame about lying loudly and constantly? It is a "get out of jail free card" that he can count on a timorous press to give him every time.
40
"A receding tide lowers all boats". Trumpacracy soils everything it touches, including those who report on him.
16
Kudos to the NY Times for taking a bold and much-needed step. Readers are sooo tired by the stale and phony he-said, she-said crapola that passes for daily journalism. It doesn't advance the public's understanding and, quite frankly, is a dodge. And it gives media-savvy politicians untold opportunities to manipulate the news cycle to their advantage by making outrageous statements designed only to grab attention.
Hopefully, the NYT example is a harbinger. At a minimum, you have sparked a much-needed debate about the way journalism ought to be conducted.
Hopefully, the NYT example is a harbinger. At a minimum, you have sparked a much-needed debate about the way journalism ought to be conducted.
7
That the Constitution gives the press explicit protection to publish freely should be taken by the press as an implied obligation to publish the truth and expose lies, especially those originating from holders and seekers of our highest and most powerful public offices. The presidency, after all, includes the unilateral power to deploy nuclear weapons, the power to literally ruin the planet in minutes. Character counts.
"Trump is ... the rare politician who will repeat false claims, over and over, even after they have been debunked by fact-checking organizations. Most politicians will simply stop repeating a claim after receiving Four Pinocchios, our worst rating." -- The Washington Post, July 15, 2016
The Times could augment its coverage of candidate and presidential honesty by publishing a tally of 3 and 4 Pinocchios earned by candidates and the incumbent.
From another commenter: "... if the press were more willing to call a lie a lie, politicians would probably tell a lot less of them."
"Trump is ... the rare politician who will repeat false claims, over and over, even after they have been debunked by fact-checking organizations. Most politicians will simply stop repeating a claim after receiving Four Pinocchios, our worst rating." -- The Washington Post, July 15, 2016
The Times could augment its coverage of candidate and presidential honesty by publishing a tally of 3 and 4 Pinocchios earned by candidates and the incumbent.
From another commenter: "... if the press were more willing to call a lie a lie, politicians would probably tell a lot less of them."
18
John from Ohio. Your point about the protection for the press in the Constitution is a critical one. "Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all." -Thomas Carlyle
1
Finally at least the idea of 'Lie' can be applied to Trump, if a year too late. Now how about reconsidering using words like 'stench' about Hillary AFTER noting a claim against Hillary is false?
14
A lie is a lie when you persist, despite evidence to the contrary, in perpetrating an untruth. It is particularly grievous when your insistence in presenting a lie as truth, causes harm to others either directly or indirectly.
14
Wow, just disappointing on its face. What was once a paper of record is now and willing to take on Presidents is now cautious and meek.
14
"That said, I think The Times should use this term rarely."
That presupposes that most lies from politicians are relatively harmless. We are in uncharted territory with the force and volume of one politician's prevarications. This is not a time for an excess of caution in the application of accurate terms for Trump's most-used tactic.
That presupposes that most lies from politicians are relatively harmless. We are in uncharted territory with the force and volume of one politician's prevarications. This is not a time for an excess of caution in the application of accurate terms for Trump's most-used tactic.
41
It also presupposes a rarity of lying by Trump that is, as Nick Lowe put it, "Nutted By Reality." Therefore, using the term (much) more rarely than the facts warrant carries, as you say, "an excess of caution."
She whiffed on false balance just as badly.
Meanwhile Trump fits the Mary McCarthy insult of Lillian Hellman even better than the playwright did. McCarthy said: "Every word is a lie, including 'and,' and 'the.'"
She whiffed on false balance just as badly.
Meanwhile Trump fits the Mary McCarthy insult of Lillian Hellman even better than the playwright did. McCarthy said: "Every word is a lie, including 'and,' and 'the.'"
5
By definition HRC is a chronic liar and there are many examples.
The lead example is (from the National Review): Clinton told...reporters at a press conference March 10, 2015 that she did not send or receive any e-mails that were classified “at the time.” She repeated it at an Iowa Democratic fundraiser July 25 and at a Democratic debate February 4, 2016.
Actually Comey said that the FBI found at least 110 e-mails that were classified at the time Clinton sent or received them — 52 e-mail chains in all, including eight Top Secret (the highest classification level) chains.
The lead example is (from the National Review): Clinton told...reporters at a press conference March 10, 2015 that she did not send or receive any e-mails that were classified “at the time.” She repeated it at an Iowa Democratic fundraiser July 25 and at a Democratic debate February 4, 2016.
Actually Comey said that the FBI found at least 110 e-mails that were classified at the time Clinton sent or received them — 52 e-mail chains in all, including eight Top Secret (the highest classification level) chains.
5
Wow, you've found a couple of Clinton whoppers. That really "balances" Trump's shameless recitation of one lie after another. Because apples and hand grenades are totally the same thing.
6
Because Hillary was a government official telling lies about her official business, while Trump is just some private citizen telling lies and shooting off his mouth.
4
Al, i am not saying that one balances the other. I am just suggesting that the path for the NYT to not feel "partisan" is to report both sides. There were eight lies outlined in the National Review article dealing with email. That, by the definition outlined in this article, would warrant the same headline treatment that Trump got.
2
Evidence that the liar knew better is what proves intent to lie. It's as simple as that. Let's see the Times and other news sources follow this simple rule. And it should be followed not 'rarely', but always, always when it applies.
27
The day is nearly here when even the word "liar" will have little power. Trump is making sure of it. It seems that only his direct victims think it matters. The rest of us? Ho hum.
8
I find myself compelled to take issue with one statement: "The Times should use this term rarely." Such a policy favors the inveterate liar over the candidate who attempts to tell the truth. If a candidate tells five outrageous lies, seven incredible lies, eight flagrant lies, nine deliberate lies, four vicious lies, and six malicious lies, will The Times avoid telling the public that the candidate lies because it would have to use the word 39 times? Mr. Trump may thank you for such solicitous consideration; but the country and the world will not forgive you.
51
The seeming reluctance of the media to call a lie a lie erodes integrity in all manner of discussions, political and otherwise. The media should bluntly "set the record straight" when facts are verifiable. And, it should do so not just "rarely," but whenever it's demanded. That's not "partisanship"! Plainly stating the truth, to the fullest extent it can be ascertained, is the job of the media. Not doing so -- and using all forms of euphemisms and equivocations -- perpetuates and validates dishonesty and falsehoods, and acts to confuse the public.
25
"Its power in political warfare has so freighted the word that its mere appearance on news pages, however factually accurate, feels partisan."
So even though it's factually accurate, you refuse to use the word lie because it "feels partisan"? So the job of a newspaper is not to report facts and call things as they are but to worry about being partisan?
It's arguments like Ms. Spayd's which have already resulted in subscription cancellations. It feels as if NYT is doing all it can to protect Trump and not call him out as a liar to protect Republicans, i.e., not to appear partisan. Do your job. Call a spade a spade. Stop worrying about appearing partisan when you are stating facts.
So even though it's factually accurate, you refuse to use the word lie because it "feels partisan"? So the job of a newspaper is not to report facts and call things as they are but to worry about being partisan?
It's arguments like Ms. Spayd's which have already resulted in subscription cancellations. It feels as if NYT is doing all it can to protect Trump and not call him out as a liar to protect Republicans, i.e., not to appear partisan. Do your job. Call a spade a spade. Stop worrying about appearing partisan when you are stating facts.
29
As far as I am concerned, it is the job of reporters to report truth, and if the truth has a decidedly partisan bias that should not be your problem. Otherwise, Ms. Spayd, to put it bluntly, you are letting the refs work your calls.
6
What is worse than the national press' timidity around using the word "lie" is its reprinting of dozens of statements -- almost daily -- that have not yet been proven to be actually true. Such as, the casual use of nouns like "businessman" and "billionaire" in close proximity to Trump's name.
Is he in fact a billionaire? We have not yet seen his tax returns. Did he lose his billionaire status as a result of the downturn or his own incompetence? Is he really a "businessman" in the traditional definition of that word?
Someone who creates a sham university and then bilks its attendees for $35,000 each is more a charlatan, a grifter, or a snake oil salesman. Not to mention the multiple Vegas bankruptcies and the chronic non-payment of mom-and-pop contractors that drive many out of business.
And yet in most articles written about him Trump is credited -- and his mercenary, three-card Monty approach -- laundered in a way by being called a "Manhattan businessman." Sadly THAT is a much more problematic use of language (and one which should have inspired more urgent introspection) than The Times' reserved and limited deployment of the word "lie" at this far too late stage, only a few weeks out from the election.
What happened to the old journalistic adage: "Your mother says she loves you? Check it out." TL:DR, how many of Trump's outrageous statements and claims ("many, many. . .") went unchallenged until recently and as this column proves, only with kid gloves, even still?
Is he in fact a billionaire? We have not yet seen his tax returns. Did he lose his billionaire status as a result of the downturn or his own incompetence? Is he really a "businessman" in the traditional definition of that word?
Someone who creates a sham university and then bilks its attendees for $35,000 each is more a charlatan, a grifter, or a snake oil salesman. Not to mention the multiple Vegas bankruptcies and the chronic non-payment of mom-and-pop contractors that drive many out of business.
And yet in most articles written about him Trump is credited -- and his mercenary, three-card Monty approach -- laundered in a way by being called a "Manhattan businessman." Sadly THAT is a much more problematic use of language (and one which should have inspired more urgent introspection) than The Times' reserved and limited deployment of the word "lie" at this far too late stage, only a few weeks out from the election.
What happened to the old journalistic adage: "Your mother says she loves you? Check it out." TL:DR, how many of Trump's outrageous statements and claims ("many, many. . .") went unchallenged until recently and as this column proves, only with kid gloves, even still?
24
"Untruth" is a good term (if you don't know the intention of the person).
4
"You score every time you can get the media to catch your opponent in one, and it’s into the bonus round if you can get them to actually call it a 'lie.' "
Wow, speaking of lies (and false balance).... Campaigns do NOT get the news media to call out the lies of an opponent. Either journalists are willing to call out lies or they are not. I'm glad to see the NYT finally called out a couple of Donald Trump's more blatant lies. But Spayd's transparent and cynical attempt to taint Hillary Clinton with it is dishonest.
Wow, speaking of lies (and false balance).... Campaigns do NOT get the news media to call out the lies of an opponent. Either journalists are willing to call out lies or they are not. I'm glad to see the NYT finally called out a couple of Donald Trump's more blatant lies. But Spayd's transparent and cynical attempt to taint Hillary Clinton with it is dishonest.
11
I'd be more impressed if the Times ran a chart with Trump's lies and Hillary's lies side by side. Sure, some people say that Hillary's lies are just "political" lies that all politicians tell, but somehow Trump's lies are different. Maybe the Times will run the lies side by side and let the public decide.
5
The fault lies with the media, including the New York TImes, for not taking a more vigilant stance against a public figure who tells blatant falsehoods. You stood around gaping at Trump's atrocious behavior and inviting the public to do the same. Where was the educated analysis of Trump's claims? Where were the sidebars showing, point for point, where he was lying or deliberately conflating issues? Or are you like Chris Wallace, who conveniently excuses himself from having to stand up to anyone during the moderation of a debate?
Day after day I opened my favorite newspaper to find nothing of substance about Trump, only the breathless can-you-believe-this copy that I could as easily find in a junk tabloid. Are you awake now? Are you ready to go to work?
Day after day I opened my favorite newspaper to find nothing of substance about Trump, only the breathless can-you-believe-this copy that I could as easily find in a junk tabloid. Are you awake now? Are you ready to go to work?
31
Donald Trump is a prime beneficiary of the liberal practice he continually assails: Political Correctness. Trump doesn't misspeak. He doesn't tell untruths or falsehoods. To describe his pronouncements as "pants on fire" is too cute by half. To put out the five-alarm fires his incendiary remarks ignite, no euphemism will do. Plain speaking is required: Donald Trump lies.
28
I agree that word lie should be used only when appropriate. Whether that happens, depends on the candidate, not the NYTimes reporters.
8
"That said, I think The Times should use this term (lie) rarely."
Sadly, when it comes to Donald Trump, the term that The Times can use use rarely is "truth."
Sadly, when it comes to Donald Trump, the term that The Times can use use rarely is "truth."
26
Unfortunately a large swath of the electorate evidently has lost the ability to discern between lies and facts. In the past, a newspaper could leave it up to its readers to determine what to make of the reporting, relying on their intelligence to sort fact from fiction. No longer. With the advent of Fox News and the blurring of the line between facts and opinions, innuendo and lies, people need to be told that something's a lie - many appear to have lost the capacity to figure that out for themselves. People no longer understand the difference between reporting and opinion, or the separation of the two in a newspaper; columnists, who are paid to have an opinion, are routinely denounced because they do, while people take issue with the reporting of facts in the news pages.
Just because something "feels partisan" doesn't mean it is. As someone else pointed out, feelings aren't facts. The facts are the facts, and when lies are being told it's the responsibility of any newspaper of record in this day and age to call that out. It's long past time for the Times to be doing so.
Just because something "feels partisan" doesn't mean it is. As someone else pointed out, feelings aren't facts. The facts are the facts, and when lies are being told it's the responsibility of any newspaper of record in this day and age to call that out. It's long past time for the Times to be doing so.
11
I must have missed the NYT headline announcing how Hillary Clinton lied several times to the public, and in congressional testimony, demonstrably and intentionally, about multiple issues related to her prohibited and illegal email server, and the classified contents within the emails.
7
Trump has been allowed to fertilize his campaign with a rich and deep mixture of lies. Some require holding two opposing ideas in your head and considering both true--a bit of psychopathy. His lies are so frequent and blatant that sane people are left wondering why he can do this?
My every measure of a political candidate for President the man is unfit. By every measure of human character, the man is a monster who does what he wants to do to gain his ends. Why? "Because I can," he tells us. "I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose votes" he brags.
Pay attention folks. Shooting someone on Fifth Avenue is not a loosely chosen phrase. Trump is capable of any act that will protect his egg shell thin ego or gain him a financial advantage. Do you know of anyone else you've heard joking about murdering someone and getting away with it? The fact that he continues to hold a credible chance of winning leads me to conclude that a lot of Americans want a monster for their leader, as long as the monster will do their bidding.
The Jews of old invented to Golum to protect them from a despotic emperor. And in the end, the Golum was as much a threat to them. Folks, we are looking at our Golum. Be forewarned that he is nobody's monster but his own.
My every measure of a political candidate for President the man is unfit. By every measure of human character, the man is a monster who does what he wants to do to gain his ends. Why? "Because I can," he tells us. "I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose votes" he brags.
Pay attention folks. Shooting someone on Fifth Avenue is not a loosely chosen phrase. Trump is capable of any act that will protect his egg shell thin ego or gain him a financial advantage. Do you know of anyone else you've heard joking about murdering someone and getting away with it? The fact that he continues to hold a credible chance of winning leads me to conclude that a lot of Americans want a monster for their leader, as long as the monster will do their bidding.
The Jews of old invented to Golum to protect them from a despotic emperor. And in the end, the Golum was as much a threat to them. Folks, we are looking at our Golum. Be forewarned that he is nobody's monster but his own.
11
It's hard to imagine why the Times calls this a lie when its favorite source of truth, the court system, has refused to speak. A rarely reported detail is that the birthers have filed dozens of lawsuits and all were dismissed on grounds of standing. The legal attitude is that it just doesn't matter any more – he's in and he staying in. Instead, they should ask Trump to admit that our nation's first foreign-born Muslim president has really done pretty well.
When the USA was established there was only one English dictionary and that was Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language. The was a long winded sophist at the time who Johnson often credited albeit disparagingly as being the smartest man on the planet. That man was Edmund Burke.
Back in the late 18th century there was a word that had far more impact than liar to describe bad character and Johnson used it to describe men like Trump. Johnson called Burke a scoundrel, sadly today scoundrel no longer has its 18th century meaning and I must resort to a Yiddish word nobody understands as I search for the 21st century equivalent for someone who sows the seeds of distrust hatred wherever they go.
Maybe we can adopt scoundrel as a verb to describe the work of men like Atwater, Rove and Carville to describe the profession of tearing nations apart for simple political gain. I wish I could use scoundrel to describe Donald Trump but today scoundrel doesn't bring to mind the destruction of the partisan political discourse.
Back in the late 18th century there was a word that had far more impact than liar to describe bad character and Johnson used it to describe men like Trump. Johnson called Burke a scoundrel, sadly today scoundrel no longer has its 18th century meaning and I must resort to a Yiddish word nobody understands as I search for the 21st century equivalent for someone who sows the seeds of distrust hatred wherever they go.
Maybe we can adopt scoundrel as a verb to describe the work of men like Atwater, Rove and Carville to describe the profession of tearing nations apart for simple political gain. I wish I could use scoundrel to describe Donald Trump but today scoundrel doesn't bring to mind the destruction of the partisan political discourse.
3
You are comparing Carville to Rove and Atwater? Give me a break. Carville told the truth. Atwater repented on his deathbed. He realized the malignancy he brought to this country.
4
No, he was accusing Carville, quite accurately, of using the tearing apart of the nation for political gain, no matter what the cost either to the nation or to the one(s) he was attacking.
Remember, Carviille's mantra was parse the statement and attack the attacker.
Remember, Carviille's mantra was parse the statement and attack the attacker.
4
No comparison.
Mr. Trump has likely lied on a number of occasions.
But so has Hillary Clinton. Just as blatantly.
The Times calls one of them a liar, but not the other. That's bias.
But so has Hillary Clinton. Just as blatantly.
The Times calls one of them a liar, but not the other. That's bias.
5
It was a lie and we, as journalists, need to stop tip-toeing around it when politicians lie. Trump is a serial lier and needs to be called such.
7
The Public Editor says the term "lie" should be used rarely.
If lying is common, then the word "lie" should be used descriptively just as frequently.
If lying is common, then the word "lie" should be used descriptively just as frequently.
13
I can only agree with hshep below: when candidates lie, it is the job of the press to call them on their lies, as lies. The fourth estate is a key part of the checks and balances that make democracies work -- and acting as a form of "truth squad" is part of their contribution to our civic well being.
5
Donald Trump is a constant flat out liar, and it's the New York Times to call them out....all of them. The New York Times has not done that enough. It's time to demand Trump release his tax returns.
8
The word "lie" implies intent, and no one, not even The New York Times, knows Trump's intent or anyone else's. Some people actually believe the falsehoods they spread.
Is Trump a raging, compulsive liar? I strongly believe so, but I don't know it. And you don't know that I believe it, only that I said so.
I'd rather see newspapers used "spread falsehoods," or something to that effect, instead of "lied." It removes the false omniscience. Some things simply aren't knowable. To deny that is to jeopardize credibility.
Is Trump a raging, compulsive liar? I strongly believe so, but I don't know it. And you don't know that I believe it, only that I said so.
I'd rather see newspapers used "spread falsehoods," or something to that effect, instead of "lied." It removes the false omniscience. Some things simply aren't knowable. To deny that is to jeopardize credibility.
1
Amazing! When I read the title, "When to Call a Lie a Lie", I just assumed you were talking about Hillary.
16
I'm infuriated that this inane comment is posted as a NYT pick.
10
For readers wondering why this comment was selected as an NYT pick: it was done accidentally. The public editor's policy of not selecting comments as NYT picks is still in effect. Our apologies for the confusion.
13
Nonsense. Ms. Clinton tells a lie every now and then, no doubt. Trump lies almost all the time, and his lies are usually outrageously incorrect. I'm surprised a doctor can't spot that, but maybe that MD is a lie too.
4
Two comments.
(a) The president could have put the whole place of birth question to rest right at the outset by securing release of his long-form birth certificate. Only in 2011, when he found it politically convenient, did the president have the certificate released. In other words, draw the fish into the birth denial net, and when they’re good and in, close it.
The Times published my letter to the editor to that effect on April 29, 2011, reading in part, “One would have thought that the ‘eminently rational’ response to the ‘political irrationality’ and ‘silliness’ of the birth issue would have been to put the best evidence on the table at the outset, not wait until now.” The quotes within the quote are from a Times editorial.
Donald Trump was one who swallowed the Obama bait. The result for Trump is that in the paper of record he’s a “liar,” with the approval of the Public Editor,
(b) I have read in other publications the messages between Clinton staffers in 2008 throwing out Obama’s place of birth as a possible issue in the Clinton/Obama 2008 Democratic presidential nominee contest. Trump, therefore, was not totally off base on the Clinton place of birth point, although he may have embellished the facts a bit, as is his wont.
(a) The president could have put the whole place of birth question to rest right at the outset by securing release of his long-form birth certificate. Only in 2011, when he found it politically convenient, did the president have the certificate released. In other words, draw the fish into the birth denial net, and when they’re good and in, close it.
The Times published my letter to the editor to that effect on April 29, 2011, reading in part, “One would have thought that the ‘eminently rational’ response to the ‘political irrationality’ and ‘silliness’ of the birth issue would have been to put the best evidence on the table at the outset, not wait until now.” The quotes within the quote are from a Times editorial.
Donald Trump was one who swallowed the Obama bait. The result for Trump is that in the paper of record he’s a “liar,” with the approval of the Public Editor,
(b) I have read in other publications the messages between Clinton staffers in 2008 throwing out Obama’s place of birth as a possible issue in the Clinton/Obama 2008 Democratic presidential nominee contest. Trump, therefore, was not totally off base on the Clinton place of birth point, although he may have embellished the facts a bit, as is his wont.
2
"Embellished the facts a bit? You mean like when he said he sent investigators to Hawaii and "you won't believe what they're finding?" It turned out he spent not even one thin dime on investigators, so even if we believe Nawi's tortured pretzel logic, Trump lied about what his investigators were finding.
In 2013, Trump offered $5 million to the charity of Obama's choice if he could prove he was born in the United States. Since Trump has now said that Obama "was born in this country, period." He now owes a $5 million contribution to the charity of Obama's choice. Wouldn't it be funny if that turned out to be the Clinton Foundation?
In 2013, Trump offered $5 million to the charity of Obama's choice if he could prove he was born in the United States. Since Trump has now said that Obama "was born in this country, period." He now owes a $5 million contribution to the charity of Obama's choice. Wouldn't it be funny if that turned out to be the Clinton Foundation?
3
It is exactly the job of the media to play political referee. That's why the debate moderators are journalists, and not some well chosen professor or this year's national debate champion or Ryan Seacrest. When the Times lets the potential perception of partisanship dictate how it covers elections, and when it lets its coverage of one candidate shape its coverage of another, it has abrogated its journalistic responsibility, not to mention its integrity.
Be the voice of reason among the sound and fury, we'll all be much better for it.
Be the voice of reason among the sound and fury, we'll all be much better for it.
10
Whether or not to use the L-word can be a tough call. Did Bill Clinton lie about a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky? Without a doubt. But we didn't know it to be a lie until sometime later.
Did people in the Bush (43) administration lie in their eagerness to fulfill the directive of the 1997 Project for the New American Century, taking us to war in Iraq? While I am among those you think that is highly likely, it is difficult to prove beyond a doubt even now. So that does not rise to the level of being labeled a lie by a non-partisan newspaper, even in retrospect.
But Donald Trump has changed the landscape. The challenge presented by his overwhelming mendacity is that calling out every lie, properly labeled, weakens the assertion by its very unending-ness. But to label such blatant, intentional and deceptive lies as anything else is itself a failure of honest reporting. When something is clearly a lie by a standard definition, there is no foul in saying so.
Did people in the Bush (43) administration lie in their eagerness to fulfill the directive of the 1997 Project for the New American Century, taking us to war in Iraq? While I am among those you think that is highly likely, it is difficult to prove beyond a doubt even now. So that does not rise to the level of being labeled a lie by a non-partisan newspaper, even in retrospect.
But Donald Trump has changed the landscape. The challenge presented by his overwhelming mendacity is that calling out every lie, properly labeled, weakens the assertion by its very unending-ness. But to label such blatant, intentional and deceptive lies as anything else is itself a failure of honest reporting. When something is clearly a lie by a standard definition, there is no foul in saying so.
36
This post illustrates the problem with using the word "lie." Bill Clinton said he "did not have sexual relations with that woman." The definition of sexual relations is sexual intercourse (check Webster and other dictionaries). And that they did not have. So obviously there was an intent to deceive, but you can't call it a lie.
And I have to agree, as much as it pains me, that the lead up to the war, as despicable as it was, could not be called a lie. Bush et al just used purposely faulty intelligence.
What Trump is doing is a totally different thing. He is a liar, pure and simply. And EACH lie deserves the amount of copy spend on Hillary's e-mails.
And I have to agree, as much as it pains me, that the lead up to the war, as despicable as it was, could not be called a lie. Bush et al just used purposely faulty intelligence.
What Trump is doing is a totally different thing. He is a liar, pure and simply. And EACH lie deserves the amount of copy spend on Hillary's e-mails.
6
I think Hillary's emails are much more important - reflecting responsibility to her duty as a government high-level office holder - than, for example, just about everything Trump has lied about.
1
How about the NYT write a story on all of the lies that Trump has made during his run for the Presidency. I'd like to see that on the front page. That is news, not opinion. What is so infuriating is knowing that these are lies and having the media sugarcoat them. I'd like to see one newspaper bold enough to have a headline that says, "Trump's a Liar". A lie is not an opinion. A lie is not subjective! It's knowing what the facts are and then stating the opposite as the fact. This is total mind manipulation. The NYT is hurting their credibility by NOT pointing out what is happening. I've been very disappointed.
86
Yes!!
2
Not only "it’s time to call a lie a lie.", it is time to recall all those times in the past that "lies" were being told and they were given a pass. I do NOT mean to start a mudfest but to own up to the fact that the public was not well served by actions to give some credibility to things known to be outright "lies" but calling them embellishments on the truth merely in the name of puritanical journalism.
When the NYT knows that a statement is a substantive and provable "Lie", so call it and give the world that proof in the next sentence.
When the NYT knows that a statement is a substantive and provable "Lie", so call it and give the world that proof in the next sentence.
35
Here is the problem;
“Its power in political warfare has so freighted the word that its mere appearance on news pages, however factually accurate, feels partisan.”
Once you give feelings and facts equal footing you have lost reason.
Do not confuse the sense that something is missing or not all there being called a feeling for feelings.
If the thing is empirically a lie then it is a lie whatever saying so makes you feel.
If that feeling alters your thoughts then the correct revealing and naming of a lie has done two things, shown you the lie and that you have a prejudice that is altering your thinking in the face of truth.
“Its power in political warfare has so freighted the word that its mere appearance on news pages, however factually accurate, feels partisan.”
Once you give feelings and facts equal footing you have lost reason.
Do not confuse the sense that something is missing or not all there being called a feeling for feelings.
If the thing is empirically a lie then it is a lie whatever saying so makes you feel.
If that feeling alters your thoughts then the correct revealing and naming of a lie has done two things, shown you the lie and that you have a prejudice that is altering your thinking in the face of truth.
20
Mark Twain said, “Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.” Trump really Rick-rolled the press before finally granting Obama citizenship, and they are pissed:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/donald-trump-bait-switch-rickroll-...
So maybe this is the end to false equivalence:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/the-death-of-he-said...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/donald-trump-bait-switch-rickroll-...
So maybe this is the end to false equivalence:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/the-death-of-he-said...
4
How about the following:
"If you like your health plan, you can keep it."
"I never sent or received any classified material on my email."
"I turned over all the emails I was required to."
"I was just following the recommendation of Colin Powell."
"I was named after Sir Edmund Hillary."
We're any of those lows? I don't remember the New York Times saying so.
"If you like your health plan, you can keep it."
"I never sent or received any classified material on my email."
"I turned over all the emails I was required to."
"I was just following the recommendation of Colin Powell."
"I was named after Sir Edmund Hillary."
We're any of those lows? I don't remember the New York Times saying so.
13
The attack in Benghazi was caused by a You Tube video.
I used a private email for convenience, so I only needed one device.
I remember dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.
I'm not just standing by my man, like Tammy Wynette.
It depends on what "is" is.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
I used a private email for convenience, so I only needed one device.
I remember dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.
I'm not just standing by my man, like Tammy Wynette.
It depends on what "is" is.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
6
The problem with Trump as apposed to most other politicians is everything he says is a lie, either directly like his birther blather or subtlety as in the half truth hiding the lie at its core. It is his business model after all, an experienced con man who lies often & proudly and like any narcissist is incapable of remorse he'll lie about something, deny even in the face of proof & then lie about it again. There's politics & then there's Trump who's entire campaign is like reality tv, nothing but fiction dressed up as drama & served to the gullible.
23
Warning: A certain candidate running for president may be hazardous to you and the safety of your country. If you should swallow the whimsical claims and alarmingly disreputable background of this candidate, immediately call a rational friend until the symptoms subside. Be aware that the candidate may appear reasonable at times. This may be due to the propaganda circulated by the FDA, Fundamentally Deceitful Advocates
who have much to gain by the sale of this candidate. Repeated affiliation with this presidential hopeful may cause aggravation, nausea and lying.
who have much to gain by the sale of this candidate. Repeated affiliation with this presidential hopeful may cause aggravation, nausea and lying.
6
I protested months ago when one of Trump's statements was called "being creative with the truth' instead of what it was; an outright lie. Exposing his lies is not opinion, it's good reporting. I'm frankly sick of the coy reporting when it comes to the statements that lunatic makes. He's a hateful racist who lies every time he opens up his mouth. And he needs to be called out on those lies.
33
About time to call a lie a lie. Political candidates are allowed to lie frequently, because we expect them to. But the time has come to end the practice. Political ads are filled with lies, and no one seems to care. This year, lies have been repeated so often they are now believable, what a shame. I hope NYT continues to call a lie a lie, whenever it is necessary. Thanks..
The Old Soldier!!
The Old Soldier!!
13
American journalism has been far too wary of calling out lies and liars. When the press has more information and perspective than the voters its duty should be to clarify - not obfuscate with false equivalence.
"Objective journalism" is an unnecessary myth that the press had used for decades to justify its role in society. While there may be objective truths, there are no objective humans - either writing stories or reading them.
"Objective journalism" is an unnecessary myth that the press had used for decades to justify its role in society. While there may be objective truths, there are no objective humans - either writing stories or reading them.
10
Thanks for not mentioning McClatchy News being sent to Kenya to investigate President Obama's birthplace by Hillary's goon squad. Thank God for the internet. Also, you must admit that the publisher of Obama's first book that indicated he was born in Kenya on the back sleeve is somewhat culpable for the misunderstanding.
7
The email sent to McClatchy was released and there was no mention of the President's birthplace.
5
What the heck does it mean for something to "feel partisan"? That, combined with the public editor's recent denial that false equivalence exists, makes me wonder what's going on here. News organizations shouldn't walk on eggshells. Objectivity does not mean balance; any good journalist (or public editor) should know that.
11
If we just focus on the unimpeachable this thing sorts itself out. 3 things:
1. A lie is by definition a deliberate intention to deceive.
2. Trump propagated birther for 5 years in contradiction to Obama's known/documented place of birth.
3. And he relented on birther by suggesting Hillary started it, contracted by the well documented campaign trails of both parties.
So partisan interests aside, with both 2 and 3 factually verifiable and stated in contradiction, we can be sure Trump and his campaign know the truth and are messaging deliberately.
1. A lie is by definition a deliberate intention to deceive.
2. Trump propagated birther for 5 years in contradiction to Obama's known/documented place of birth.
3. And he relented on birther by suggesting Hillary started it, contracted by the well documented campaign trails of both parties.
So partisan interests aside, with both 2 and 3 factually verifiable and stated in contradiction, we can be sure Trump and his campaign know the truth and are messaging deliberately.
11
It's important to call Trump the liar he is. The Democrats have miserably failed in countering his lies. They need to start demanding proof to substantiate his statements. Where is the evidence that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement? Research reveals that during the 2008 campaign, her chief strategist wrote in a memo that “Obama’s foreign background could present a weakness for him, and Clinton should emphasize her middle-class Midwestern upbringing.” “His roots to American values and culture are at best limited,” the memo says, “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and values.” Also during the 2008 campaign, “a staffer forwarded an email promoting the birther conspiracy in 2007, but that staffer was immediately fired.” A fact-checking site at the time reported that “the idea of ‘birtherism’ could originally be traced to Clinton’s diehard supporters, as it became clear she was going to lose the nomination . . .but Clinton supporters aren’t the same thing as her campaign.” (1)
Another word to describe Trump and possibly more suitable to describe his heart is “deceiver.” His tactics are a continuous streaming grist mill of deception.
1 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-checking-trumps-claim-clinton-starte...
Another word to describe Trump and possibly more suitable to describe his heart is “deceiver.” His tactics are a continuous streaming grist mill of deception.
1 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-checking-trumps-claim-clinton-starte...
6
Mr. Trump is a liar. Not to soften that statement but to put it in perspective people lie, but his lies are his soul and being. He has gained power and some would say prestige on lies. Because he is not who he says he is, the voter has no real idea how he will act if elected. He is much more than a wild card. He is defective. All one really has in the world of business, politics and of course love is ones reputation and Mr. Trump's is damaged beyond repair.
14
Reserving loaded terms like "lie" for the most extreme circumstances seems to me the kind of wise and thoughtful journalism we expect from the Times. It takes courage both to hold back on using it and to use it when the situation finally seems to warrant it.
But the Times' editors are not entitled to a lot of principled-journalism-courage points for applying the "L" word to Trump's longstanding birther lie only once he himself - apparently under pressure from his own advisers - had publicly abandoned his own lie.
Sorry, but it wasn't just this week that it became clear Trump was continuing to propagate the birther story long, long after he had to know that it was untrue. Where were the editors last week, and the week before that?
But the Times' editors are not entitled to a lot of principled-journalism-courage points for applying the "L" word to Trump's longstanding birther lie only once he himself - apparently under pressure from his own advisers - had publicly abandoned his own lie.
Sorry, but it wasn't just this week that it became clear Trump was continuing to propagate the birther story long, long after he had to know that it was untrue. Where were the editors last week, and the week before that?
9
The "facts" support a "not true" statement.
Unless you have rock-solid proof that the one making the untrue statement, the word "lie" should always be avoided.
Ms. Spayd allows her political bias show in this piece.
How sad, how really sad.
Unless you have rock-solid proof that the one making the untrue statement, the word "lie" should always be avoided.
Ms. Spayd allows her political bias show in this piece.
How sad, how really sad.
5
If you published every lie Trump has told since the beginning of this election it would take up more than your entire newspaper. If you had called out each lie as it was told we would not now have Trump as the republican presidential nominee. Not calling an obvious lie a lie is partisan.
10
Pundits right and left, conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, have recognized the change in political speech in recent years. Is not only Mr. Trump. He is only the extreme version of it. The problem is not "a lie", that happens all the time. The problem is lying frequently (one lie after another) and repeatedly (they repeat the lie over and over). These techniques explote the weaknesses of the traditional media, used to one lie at a time, and to politicians accepting corrections when proved they are wrong.
This tactics challenge the very reason of the media's existence. They allow misinformation to prevail, or at least to stay alive until the election is over.
But this is only part of the NYT failures. I have seen extensive coverage of Mrs. Clinton's healthgate, foundationgate, e mailgate, etc. Yet, there has been only sporadic, if any, coverage on Mrs. Trump's foundation, university, deals with Florida's AG, and I can go on and on.
So, the NYT published an article calling a lie a lie. Hurray!, I think.
This tactics challenge the very reason of the media's existence. They allow misinformation to prevail, or at least to stay alive until the election is over.
But this is only part of the NYT failures. I have seen extensive coverage of Mrs. Clinton's healthgate, foundationgate, e mailgate, etc. Yet, there has been only sporadic, if any, coverage on Mrs. Trump's foundation, university, deals with Florida's AG, and I can go on and on.
So, the NYT published an article calling a lie a lie. Hurray!, I think.
15
"Its power in political warfare has so freighted the word that its mere appearance on news pages, however factually accurate, feels partisan. It feels, as Ryan said, as if you’re playing the referee in frivolous political disputes."
These kind of statements help explain why the public editor's recent analysis of "false balance" so missed the mark. Why should it matter if it "feels partisan" or if it "feels" (as Paul Ryan (!) says) "as if you're playing the referee"? If the statement satisfies the three conditions identified earlier in the article, then the word "lie" should be used. Are you suggesting that if Trump makes further statements that are lies according to the Times' own standard that the paper should refrain from using the term just because of how it would look?
This sort of thinking is *exactly* what people call "false balance." It suggests that the Times must, in principle, limit the number of instances in which Trump's lies are identified as such, or that it should insist on finding some instances in which one of Clinton's statements can be so described. It implies a view in which appearance--the way things "feel" rather than how they actually are-- is more important than truth. It's hard to imagine a worse principle by which a newspaper should be guided.
A public editor who does not understand the notion of false balance--the crucial concept in this election--is not worthy of the name.
These kind of statements help explain why the public editor's recent analysis of "false balance" so missed the mark. Why should it matter if it "feels partisan" or if it "feels" (as Paul Ryan (!) says) "as if you're playing the referee"? If the statement satisfies the three conditions identified earlier in the article, then the word "lie" should be used. Are you suggesting that if Trump makes further statements that are lies according to the Times' own standard that the paper should refrain from using the term just because of how it would look?
This sort of thinking is *exactly* what people call "false balance." It suggests that the Times must, in principle, limit the number of instances in which Trump's lies are identified as such, or that it should insist on finding some instances in which one of Clinton's statements can be so described. It implies a view in which appearance--the way things "feel" rather than how they actually are-- is more important than truth. It's hard to imagine a worse principle by which a newspaper should be guided.
A public editor who does not understand the notion of false balance--the crucial concept in this election--is not worthy of the name.
28
I agree entirely. The very contorted and tedious analysis of "false balance" several days ago by the Public Editor badly missed the point. That was about the same time as the news report described Trump as "stretching the truth". The Times is on course to repeat it notorious failure to inform the public about the build up to war in Iraq.
9
If a candidate says something and quickly publicly apologizes and takes responsibility, it is a mis-statement or an error. If the candidate says something he/she knows to be untrue to gain an advantage and doesn't immediately own it, call it what it is -- a lie. By that standard, Trump is an inveterate liar and the press has let us down by not calling him on his lies beginning a year ago. Soon it will be too late...
41
It's true, Trump lies all the time, and his lies should be called lies. There's no reason to bend over backward to assume he's stretching the truth, or misspeaking, or mistaken. He lies quite intentionally and nearly all the time, and that can't be pointed out enough.
Of course his supporters seem to be too boneheaded to figure out that he's lying to them all the time, but there's always hope that they'll wake up to reality somehow.
Of course his supporters seem to be too boneheaded to figure out that he's lying to them all the time, but there's always hope that they'll wake up to reality somehow.
13
I'm not sure whether Donald Trump knows that his statements are lies. I know he does not care whether he is accurate or not, which is a horrible characteristic for potential president.
If I were asking questions at the debate, I would ask: "When and why did you start believing that President Obama was born in the US.
And I would follow it up, with: You did not answer the question, as usual . I would not hire someone who refused to provide a resume for cross checking. Why should we trust someone who avoids answers, and hides their tax return. Maddoff did the same thing.
If I were asking questions at the debate, I would ask: "When and why did you start believing that President Obama was born in the US.
And I would follow it up, with: You did not answer the question, as usual . I would not hire someone who refused to provide a resume for cross checking. Why should we trust someone who avoids answers, and hides their tax return. Maddoff did the same thing.
4
It wasn't a "lie" prior to Obama releasing his birth certificate, as there was still some ambiguity around his birthplace.
3
There was no ambiguity except as Donald Trump sought to create it. Your comment accepts the deception, thus contributing to it. Very sad.
9
DRS, Really? Give it up. It was a lie and has always been a lie.
11
Obama released his birth certificate years ago. And, frankly, there was never any 'ambiguity' about his birthplace. He was born in Hawaii, a U.S.State. Only racists felt there was any 'ambiguity' about his birthplace, because is suited their narrative.
4
Self-evidently, every falsehood disseminated is not a lie. What makes it a lie is intention to deceive. Often falsehoods are repeated because they come from known sources which have proven reliable over a sufficient interval that repeaters do not hesitate to qualify them in any way. Nevertheless often enough the reliance turns out to have been misplaced to the point of embarrassment or unequivocal harm et al. Generally, the appropriate use of "lie" ought to include - by the Times or anyone - an adequate reference, e.g. a footnote, to that which the user contends establishes intent. The exception proving this rule is anything disseminate by Mr Trump a "known source ... which ha[s]...proven [un]reliable over a sufficient interval that repeaters...[need] not hesitate to [omit any] qualif[ication."
2
When a major figure in US politics lies, that is news, and it should be reported as such. Of course the word should only be used when the statement in question is demonstrably false. But when a major figure says things that are not true, that is news, and the public needs to know about it.
10
There is nothing wrong, and plenty right, about calling out politicians' lies.
That said, I'm looking forward to the NY Times calling out the "lies" of Hillary and Obama.
But that would require a level of journalistic integrity, and editors doing their job -- qualities we haven't seen at the NY Times for years.
That said, I'm looking forward to the NY Times calling out the "lies" of Hillary and Obama.
But that would require a level of journalistic integrity, and editors doing their job -- qualities we haven't seen at the NY Times for years.
6
Lie is less the point than misinformation. Here's what's missing from your reporting;
"Christiane Amanpour on Daily Show interviewed by Trevor Noah, July 20, 2016: "Truthful not neutral - There's a difference: Truthful is bringing the truth. Neutral can be bringing a false equivalence..."
You no longer bring the truth. Your front page is full of opinion. News is not a quote from Trump or a rebuttal from Clinton. Often instead of presenting a fact, you provide a rebuttal from a candidate refuting the lie. If the candidate says something as fact (and it's not), call them on it. Don't provide the other candidates rebuttal instead. Keep the public informed. Every utterance is not news. Do investigative reporting. Tell us about every business venture that Trump engaged in, with through investigation into how he runs his businesses. After all, that's his claim to the presidency, he will manage the country as he does his businesses. Find his previous employed (how did he handle dissension?" Stop repeating "emails" and "Benghazi" as if that's all Hillary has accomplished, in so doing becoming an aid to hyperbole.
Yes, call a lie a lie and then stop reporting it. Lies develop velocity, when repeated. In this case the rampant lies Trump and his supporters have spread are dangerous.
"Christiane Amanpour on Daily Show interviewed by Trevor Noah, July 20, 2016: "Truthful not neutral - There's a difference: Truthful is bringing the truth. Neutral can be bringing a false equivalence..."
You no longer bring the truth. Your front page is full of opinion. News is not a quote from Trump or a rebuttal from Clinton. Often instead of presenting a fact, you provide a rebuttal from a candidate refuting the lie. If the candidate says something as fact (and it's not), call them on it. Don't provide the other candidates rebuttal instead. Keep the public informed. Every utterance is not news. Do investigative reporting. Tell us about every business venture that Trump engaged in, with through investigation into how he runs his businesses. After all, that's his claim to the presidency, he will manage the country as he does his businesses. Find his previous employed (how did he handle dissension?" Stop repeating "emails" and "Benghazi" as if that's all Hillary has accomplished, in so doing becoming an aid to hyperbole.
Yes, call a lie a lie and then stop reporting it. Lies develop velocity, when repeated. In this case the rampant lies Trump and his supporters have spread are dangerous.
21
Good to know that The Times has finally had a lightbulb moment on the use of the word "lie." Too bad it didn't occur 13 or 14 years earlier, and we might have avoided the Iraq War. Instead, propaganda was presented to the readers as fact.
11
"I think The Times should use this term rarely"
But Ms. Spayd--what if the obvious lies, the ones that pass the smell test and the fact checkers and all the standards used in the "reality based community" keep coming? Does the NYT, or any news organization, decide it will use the word "lie" only a limited number of times, even if a candidate promulgates a lie every day? So, the NYT might run out, say, on Sept 30, of the number of times it's willing to use the word, no matter what?
Yikes.
But Ms. Spayd--what if the obvious lies, the ones that pass the smell test and the fact checkers and all the standards used in the "reality based community" keep coming? Does the NYT, or any news organization, decide it will use the word "lie" only a limited number of times, even if a candidate promulgates a lie every day? So, the NYT might run out, say, on Sept 30, of the number of times it's willing to use the word, no matter what?
Yikes.
33
Trump's followers are brainwashed into thinking all of the mainstream media is out to get them. No use sugar coating things - the guy is a liar and should be called that, and they are going to complain. Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't exactly have a perfect record with the truth either, but she is not living in a fantasy land where we make things up as we go and constantly change our definition of the truth.
13
A lie should be called a lie. But I think now The Times owes an apology for not letting Paul Krugman use the word to describe what George W. Bush did as a presidential candidate: lie.
18
When to Call a Lie a Lie?
When you're reporting on something asserted as true, but is in fact a lie. And I'd define the word much as you have: something untrue that the speaker or writer knows to be untrue.
We have a candidate this election who is a habitual liar, so if The Times feels that calling a lie a lie is something they should rarely do-- because it *looks* partisan-- the electorate and the country are going to be poorly served.
In pursuit of the truth, lies must be labeled clearly as such. Euphemisms for "lie" are themselves deceptive, and thus counterproductive. The clearest, shortest and most straight-forward word the English language has for such a thing is "lie." It shouldn't be avoided-- especially during an election when, for the first time in modern American history, we have a demagogic candidate lying freely with no apparent repercussions to his popularity.
When you're reporting on something asserted as true, but is in fact a lie. And I'd define the word much as you have: something untrue that the speaker or writer knows to be untrue.
We have a candidate this election who is a habitual liar, so if The Times feels that calling a lie a lie is something they should rarely do-- because it *looks* partisan-- the electorate and the country are going to be poorly served.
In pursuit of the truth, lies must be labeled clearly as such. Euphemisms for "lie" are themselves deceptive, and thus counterproductive. The clearest, shortest and most straight-forward word the English language has for such a thing is "lie." It shouldn't be avoided-- especially during an election when, for the first time in modern American history, we have a demagogic candidate lying freely with no apparent repercussions to his popularity.
27
I'm not clear as to why it took until Trump's admission that the President was born in the USA to call his prior birtherism claims a lie. My question for NYT journalists is more what constitutes adequate proof of intentionality (second listed criterion) to call his repeated birther assertions over five years 'lies?'
With the high stakes of a presidential election, how long will it take the NYT to assert there is adequate proof of intention to speak a proven falsehood? Is NYT too worried about surviving to become the nation's news source of record, á la USA Today or AP?
If so, give it up; you've got about the chance of being the 'News God' that Stephen Colbert has of becoming dominant in late night talk. Instead, err on the side of honesty. NYT will survive on the urban areas' support, and history will give you kudos.
With the high stakes of a presidential election, how long will it take the NYT to assert there is adequate proof of intention to speak a proven falsehood? Is NYT too worried about surviving to become the nation's news source of record, á la USA Today or AP?
If so, give it up; you've got about the chance of being the 'News God' that Stephen Colbert has of becoming dominant in late night talk. Instead, err on the side of honesty. NYT will survive on the urban areas' support, and history will give you kudos.
5
"That said, I think The Times should use this term rarely. Its power in political warfare has so freighted the word that its mere appearance on news pages, however factually accurate, feels partisan. It feels, as Ryan said, as if you’re playing the referee in frivolous political disputes."
It should be used when it is accurate, whether that means it is used rarely or every day. The invocation of "feeling" here is distressing. The point of the news page is to report accurately, not to adhere to the dictates of a certain feeling.
It should be used when it is accurate, whether that means it is used rarely or every day. The invocation of "feeling" here is distressing. The point of the news page is to report accurately, not to adhere to the dictates of a certain feeling.
35
I fully support NYT if they call a lie a lie. I need them to fact check for me. It's become an exhausting exercise with Trump.
21
please keep on saying this: trump is a liar, a cheat, a grifter, a thug.
14
We know that he's "a liar, a cheat, a grifter, a thug." Why then do we support him for the most challenging/important job in the world???
So if Trump is ignorant of the truth and spreads falsehoods, it's not a lie? Checking and reporting facts is the responsibility of the media who has been woefully negligent in calling Trump on his lies as he spins a story. When caught he gives a late apology or "I was joking" designed for his benefit. He may be ignorant but he's not stupid.
25
The public editor here is guilty of an editorial aside also found in the Times's news articles: that birtherism is connected to Obama's race and is racist (i.e. anti-black).
I question this statement -- of opinion -- for two reasons: (1) birtherism is rooted in the constitutional requirement prohibiting foreign born citizens from holding the Presidency (so more aptly is a matter of xenophobia if we need a word, but course xenophobia is the basis of the Constitutional rule baring those who could harbor dual allegiances) and (2) there is no tradition of skepticism about foreign allegiances of American blacks or foreign birth status or any other common racist trope about black people and foreign birth that birtherism could be connected to.
The best argument for birtherism as racist is that it is an outlandish lie about a black person meant to highlight his "otherness" - but again it does not speak to the otherness of his race but more aptly of Obama being the son of a foreigner with Muslim heritage. It would be like claiming that a criticism of Hillary Clinton as in the pocket of the Clinton Foundation's foreign donors is misogynistic.
A lie about a black person is not necessarily racist. A lie is bad enough on its own. Bring race into the matter is just a symptom of the pervasiveness of the "race card" media culture and of identity politics that tries to drum up a reaction among American blacks.
I question this statement -- of opinion -- for two reasons: (1) birtherism is rooted in the constitutional requirement prohibiting foreign born citizens from holding the Presidency (so more aptly is a matter of xenophobia if we need a word, but course xenophobia is the basis of the Constitutional rule baring those who could harbor dual allegiances) and (2) there is no tradition of skepticism about foreign allegiances of American blacks or foreign birth status or any other common racist trope about black people and foreign birth that birtherism could be connected to.
The best argument for birtherism as racist is that it is an outlandish lie about a black person meant to highlight his "otherness" - but again it does not speak to the otherness of his race but more aptly of Obama being the son of a foreigner with Muslim heritage. It would be like claiming that a criticism of Hillary Clinton as in the pocket of the Clinton Foundation's foreign donors is misogynistic.
A lie about a black person is not necessarily racist. A lie is bad enough on its own. Bring race into the matter is just a symptom of the pervasiveness of the "race card" media culture and of identity politics that tries to drum up a reaction among American blacks.
7
So it wasn't racism, President Obama just happens to be African American? Sorry but a reality check is required.
5
It's time for the press stop giving this lying, vulgar Trump a free pass - every day Trump all over the NYT, and all so "balanced". This is not reporting, holding people accountable. When is the Times and other news organizations in this country going to start doing their jobs?
19
When a presidential candidate is a walking Nation Enquirer agonizing over whether to call what he says a lie seems redundant.
3
Yes, the Times should call lies lies, just the way they refer to ducks as ducks. What is most troubling to me is that the American public, or a significant portion of it, no longer takes honesty as a basic requirement for public life. Truly, we have wandered into a wilderness of fabrication where people will somehow look beyond the thickets of fabrications and distortions to what? Trust someone to do right? I don't often invoke the Ten Commandments but they seem very relevant here. We can forgive Trump but we ought not accommodate his lying or reward his strategic use of it. He is a person without a moral compass. All people of decency need to understand that. And then, act strategically to make sure that he does not become president and that his career in public life comes to an end. It is a distraction from the serious business of our nation.
16
Hope all the media takes this to heart the next time they re-spread false rumors about Hillary's "trustworthiness."
10
You say that the Times should use the word lie rarely. I wish it would be appropriate to use it rarely. However, it should not be up to tje Times to decide the frequency. When pols lie seems to me the time for all news sources to use the word. And every time he or she lies say it loud and clear.
17
What Trump did with his Birther accusations and movement was Gaslighting, plain and simple.
Also, it's pretty sad state of affairs when the NYT needs to write/print an article with a thorough explanation of what exactly comprises a lie, or untruth. I would think that this is common knowledge in society, then I'm reminded that 1.) "common knowledge" is subjective, and, 2.) you can't try to explain this, 'what is a lie/who is a liar" to people who are irrational (Trump and his supporters).
Also, it's pretty sad state of affairs when the NYT needs to write/print an article with a thorough explanation of what exactly comprises a lie, or untruth. I would think that this is common knowledge in society, then I'm reminded that 1.) "common knowledge" is subjective, and, 2.) you can't try to explain this, 'what is a lie/who is a liar" to people who are irrational (Trump and his supporters).
5
Good article and a US ject worth exploring but I doubt you get this level of navel-gazing over at Fox or any other right-tilting news outlets.
8
A few days ago, I wrote a letter to the editor -- after squawking for months, mostly in various comment sections, about the namby-pamby way much of the reporting on Donald Trump has been written -- to thank the newspaper for finally having the courage to "tell it like it is." The word "lie" was very appropriate as used.
I don't believe the paper should tiptoe around the word, but I can accept the decision to use it judiciously provided the paper calls out all of Donald Trump's other outright lies, untruths, falsehoods, unsubstantiated claims, deceptions, exaggerations, and so on, in no uncertain terms.
To the Editor: Please continue calling out all the false claims and lies that Donald Trump is peddling. There is too much at stake in this election to not tell it like it is.
I don't believe the paper should tiptoe around the word, but I can accept the decision to use it judiciously provided the paper calls out all of Donald Trump's other outright lies, untruths, falsehoods, unsubstantiated claims, deceptions, exaggerations, and so on, in no uncertain terms.
To the Editor: Please continue calling out all the false claims and lies that Donald Trump is peddling. There is too much at stake in this election to not tell it like it is.
106
Is it the primary mission of the New York Times to appear “balanced” and “nonpartisan,” or should it be to inform its readers and help them distinguish what is false from what is true? The new Public Editor has come down firmly on the side of “balance” at the expense of truth.
While I agree that it should rarely be appropriate to call a presidential candidate a liar, it is even more inappropriate to allow a presidential candidate to get away with a stream of deliberate and calculated lies. In fact, if the press were more willing to call a lie a lie, politicians would probably tell a lot less of them.
While I agree that it should rarely be appropriate to call a presidential candidate a liar, it is even more inappropriate to allow a presidential candidate to get away with a stream of deliberate and calculated lies. In fact, if the press were more willing to call a lie a lie, politicians would probably tell a lot less of them.
318
"Truth" used be "Pravada," in the former USSR. When Democrats claim to have "the truth" and "the facts," that's the time to get out a calculator and Google. It is being piled higher and deeper.
1
I believe you refer to "Pravda," not "Pravada," and it's been the official newspaper of the Russian Communist Party since 1912. It's still in publication, though down in circulation from 11 million to 100,000. ("Pravda" means "truth" in Russian.)
Many candidates for elected office will engage in spin and embellishment. Intentional falsehoods did occur, but were very rare. Donald Trump has changed that. He offers both intentional falsehoods and engages in wanton disregard for whether his statements are true or false, without any apparent consideration to what his statements do to the office of the president or to his credibility. The NY Times and other news organizations need to be vigilant in calling out his lies, as there is far too great a risk that people will take what he says as true, simply because he is running for the office of President. Sugar coating it by calling it a falsehood instead of a lie is not appropriate.
67
A lie is a lie--I see no "opinion" here. Tell it like it is. This seems to be what the American public demands. When the truth is obscured by words, democracy is not served.
215
It's not really true that "a lie is a lie." Yes, some state,emts turn out to be untrue, but not all those things are lies.
Intentionality is indeed important. In a political campaign intentionality is organized around making a candidate appealing to voters. If something works, they will say it again and even push the bounds further out.
It's hard to call a lie a lie, even if we wish it were not so, because judging intentionality is subjective.
Intentionality is indeed important. In a political campaign intentionality is organized around making a candidate appealing to voters. If something works, they will say it again and even push the bounds further out.
It's hard to call a lie a lie, even if we wish it were not so, because judging intentionality is subjective.
Journalists are not stenographers, merely conveying their subjects' words. They are reporters -- reporting on the world around them. Reporting involves research, interviews, conveying of information (as in saying what someone said), asking probing questions, and connecting the dots based on reasonable knowledge. It is fine to say, for example, "Donald Trump said he has evidence that President Obama is not a US citizen." But only if followed by, "at this time he provided no evidence and all the evidence that is available to us points to Obama being born in Hawaii to an American mother." Then if Trump repeatedly says such unsubstantiated things, the reporters should say that, for example, "Trump says X, but provides no evidence when in fact all evidence points to not-X. Trump persists in presenting a view of the world that is often in contradiction with everything known about it." Then when Trump says such a thing again, any reporter covering it should say to him, "You have repeatedly made such unsubstantiated claims. Do you believe that you can make up things about the world? Or do you have sources untapped by others? If so, people have a right to investigate your sources. What are they? It's one thing to interpret information differently, it is another to simply manufacture facts to suit your purpose. What are you interpreting differently and/or what facts are you relying on?" Also, juxtaposing quotes from Trump himself contradicting his claims is legit.
70
Yes, the followup question or clarification is exactly what has been needed since Trump arrived on the scene. All media has been severely negligent. As you say, reporters are not stenographers-- we should be getting more information or what's their purpose? Lauer's/NBC's "forum" performance made plainly evident to most what we've been experiencing all along. Trump lays an egg-- a rotten one-- and the Popular Media just lets the stench hang in the air. Journalists by now should realize they need to always bring their own air freshener when dealing with Trump.
Also, by now his game is about as sophisticated as a spoiled 3rd grader. There is no excuse for not being prepared for him.
Also, by now his game is about as sophisticated as a spoiled 3rd grader. There is no excuse for not being prepared for him.
3
Just report what's true. In your effort not to be partisan, you unfairly advantage the clear liar in this race. It's unfair that Hillary's occasional exaggerations (OK, it was just bulletproof vests, not actual sniper fire) are put on the same plane as Donald's endless intentional and self-serving deceptions. This is a man who repeatedly posed as his own publicity agent and then lied about it, then admitted it, then lied about it again--and all of this is on tape! And you barely touched that story, lest you seem "partisan." Unbelievable.
208
Just a fib, RCR? Brian Williams lost his job for that kind of fib.
What about email server at home and classified documents on that server?
Those are really serious. Do you OK those?
What about email server at home and classified documents on that server?
Those are really serious. Do you OK those?
Beats me how the word 'lie' gets to be editorializing. Editorializing inevitably entails bringing to bear some degree of personal judgment, opinion, etc. -- not just presenting facts. A lie is a statement that is not true and that the liar knows is not true. That something is a lie can be a matter of opinion only if there is no evidence or only weak evidence that the speaker is not aware of the truth. If Trump was unaware of the truth in this case, then it can only be that he is a man who chooses to believe his own lies. Which may be true, but it still makes him a liar, just one with severe mental health issues.
112
Trump has an arsenal of deceptions, from shockingly outrageous to mere allusions.
To make the point that Obama is not one of us, he started with birtherism. He moved to calling Obama the founder of Isis. Now he has abandoned birtherism in favor of the allusion that the democrats are more critical of his supporters than they are of terrorists. The shock of birtherism is no longer needed, the allusion will do.
He does something similar with labels. Decades of accusing Hillary Clinton of corruption have not been successful. Now he merely labels her crooked Hillary, the media repeats it and she is re-accused every time they do.
This is why Trump should be edited and not given free air time, he pollutes the political discourse with deceptions.
To make the point that Obama is not one of us, he started with birtherism. He moved to calling Obama the founder of Isis. Now he has abandoned birtherism in favor of the allusion that the democrats are more critical of his supporters than they are of terrorists. The shock of birtherism is no longer needed, the allusion will do.
He does something similar with labels. Decades of accusing Hillary Clinton of corruption have not been successful. Now he merely labels her crooked Hillary, the media repeats it and she is re-accused every time they do.
This is why Trump should be edited and not given free air time, he pollutes the political discourse with deceptions.
99
Given the Times appalling history in political coverage malpractice, extending back at least to Carolyn Ryan's predecessor, Richard Stevenson, this late adoption of truth telling, even using the "freighted" word "lie," which seems merited, has all the conviction of a deathbed call of a severely lapsed catholic for a priest and last rites (The Flytes of "Brideshead Revisited" spring to mind).
Yes, the Times has been running opinion and speculation, often under cover of anonymity, so much under Ryan's abysmal, agenda driven leadership, that I don't actually think quite as badly about Stevenson's tenure in the job.
Yes, the Times has been running opinion and speculation, often under cover of anonymity, so much under Ryan's abysmal, agenda driven leadership, that I don't actually think quite as badly about Stevenson's tenure in the job.
5
"Is that stretching the truth? An unfounded assertion? An error? A falsehood?"
Or a flat out lie?
Did Melania Trumps convention speech"appear" to "plagiarize lines from Michelle Obama's speech? Were there "repeated similarities?"
Or was it plagiarism?
No modern day Presidential candidate has willfully repeated as many "false assertions" as Donald Trump.
We're approaching becoming a post factual society. It's a first for the country. And a first for the press. Who's responsibility in a free Democratic society is to set the record straight.
Trump has changed the game. Time for the press to change too.
Or a flat out lie?
Did Melania Trumps convention speech"appear" to "plagiarize lines from Michelle Obama's speech? Were there "repeated similarities?"
Or was it plagiarism?
No modern day Presidential candidate has willfully repeated as many "false assertions" as Donald Trump.
We're approaching becoming a post factual society. It's a first for the country. And a first for the press. Who's responsibility in a free Democratic society is to set the record straight.
Trump has changed the game. Time for the press to change too.
40
The media has been ensnared in Trump's thrall for too long, and I can't imagine why. It is a journalist's job to be fair, if course, but not to pander. The NY Times should have called him out on every lie he has told since the beginning. Had it done its job better, we may not be in the position of possibly electing the most dangerous man to run for president in recent history. It's not even that he lies, but that he has not concept of what it means to tell the truth. That is the difference between a common criminal and a sociopath.
39
Since when are reporters supposed to be wholly objective? If I remember my journalism classes correctly, a reporter's job was to find the truth and report it, using the appropriate language that fits the story. If Woodward and Bernstein had used the present standard of journalism objectivity, Watergate would still only be known as some second rate Washington hotel.
15
Woodward and Johnson where are you? We need to expose Trump in a way that actually exposes how the press was conned.
2
"Suggesting" Trump lied is different from proving he lied; if you had him previously admitting the truth, that would be a whole other thing. He could be mistaken, like a 9/11 truther, but that is not a lie. As you say, a lie must have intentionality. Otherwise, you need to call Hillary's assertions about her emails lies as well.
How about a birth certificate. The birther movement cloaked racism in what appeared to be skepticism. .
3
Question for the NYT:
Why did President Obama take the extraordinary step of banning Sidney Blumenthal from any position in his administration, forcing Hillary to communicate with him through her secret email server?
Because he started the birther rumor for Hillary, of course.
Is it a lie that Hillary started the birther rumor because she had a flunky do it for her?
Would Hillary have to have actually written the story herself, have it notarized, and then send it out on her own stationary for it not to be a lie?
Why did President Obama take the extraordinary step of banning Sidney Blumenthal from any position in his administration, forcing Hillary to communicate with him through her secret email server?
Because he started the birther rumor for Hillary, of course.
Is it a lie that Hillary started the birther rumor because she had a flunky do it for her?
Would Hillary have to have actually written the story herself, have it notarized, and then send it out on her own stationary for it not to be a lie?
5
At one point here the Public Editor seems to worry about the Times' writing "feeling partisan." While I understand this point, I worry that this kind of concern--thinking about the optics of a given article, or editors' notions of their outlets' specific reputation as a filter through which to make determinations about what news to cover and how--is part of what is tripping up the news media at large and perhaps the Times in particular.
Without wandering into the "Is objectivity possible" or "Is objectivity overrated" debates--too long for comments--I'll just say this: In this polarized a political climate, anyone who speaks at all is up for accusation of partisanship, and letting that cloud one's view or expression of the truth leads downhill fast.
It isn't a journalist's job to frame or message the truth in such a way as to insulate herself from a possible accusation of bias. It's a journalist's job to report and write the truth. If the truth is that something is a lie, say so; if accusations of bias come, lay out the case.
I would guess that attempting to avoid "feeling partisan" will not result in more accurate reporting and writing of the truth. Seems like factoring in self-conscious notions of who might say what in reaction is madness. Way too easy to get wrapped around that axle.
A minor thing perhaps, but perhaps revealing.
Without wandering into the "Is objectivity possible" or "Is objectivity overrated" debates--too long for comments--I'll just say this: In this polarized a political climate, anyone who speaks at all is up for accusation of partisanship, and letting that cloud one's view or expression of the truth leads downhill fast.
It isn't a journalist's job to frame or message the truth in such a way as to insulate herself from a possible accusation of bias. It's a journalist's job to report and write the truth. If the truth is that something is a lie, say so; if accusations of bias come, lay out the case.
I would guess that attempting to avoid "feeling partisan" will not result in more accurate reporting and writing of the truth. Seems like factoring in self-conscious notions of who might say what in reaction is madness. Way too easy to get wrapped around that axle.
A minor thing perhaps, but perhaps revealing.
16
There's comes a point where if the news media doesn't take note of bald faced mendacity, it's not doing its job.
29
Politicians are fast and loose with the truth. Like it or not it is part of the political landscape. Trump is different, he has taken stretching the truth, making stuff up and lying to a whole new level. He tells lies virtually everyday on the campaign. Trump ought to called for what he is, a liar (amongst other things).
33
In this election cycle, neither of the candidates have been particularly wedded to the truth.
How would you label Hillary Clinton's frequent revisions of her story regarding her e-mails, Bill, especially in light of the FBI report? Spin?
Those certainly have be highly calculated, deliberate misstatements for personal political gain/protection. They have also be at wide variance from the "truth" as the facts have been dribbled out.
I am not arguing for the use of the word "lie" in anything other than an opinion piece. Stating the fact that something is not true is far more appropriate in reporting as the journalist has little insight as to the true state of the "liar's" thinking.
How would you label Hillary Clinton's frequent revisions of her story regarding her e-mails, Bill, especially in light of the FBI report? Spin?
Those certainly have be highly calculated, deliberate misstatements for personal political gain/protection. They have also be at wide variance from the "truth" as the facts have been dribbled out.
I am not arguing for the use of the word "lie" in anything other than an opinion piece. Stating the fact that something is not true is far more appropriate in reporting as the journalist has little insight as to the true state of the "liar's" thinking.
2
Does the "smell" test apply to the nytimes? Physician heal thyself.
2
I cannot fathom why you think it is more important to not appear "partisan" than to be truthful, accurate and helpful to your readers. If one party's candidate lies all the time, then yes, calling those lies what they are will appear partisan, but that's not a journalist's problem. sometimes reality is partisan.
46
Thank you @EMJ
Reporting the truth is not partisan.
Are reporters just to report whatever anyone says and not then discuss what that means? Are they supposed to give equal weight to every pronouncement?
If Henny Penny yells that the sky is falling, do reporters just report that? Do they report that there is no evidence that the sky is falling or has fallen? That HP is just trying to get attention?
Not every statement is of equal value and it should be the duty of reporters to let their readers/viewers know what the level of those statements are.
If you don't believe this then we are back to the bad old days of yellow journalism. The truth be damned.
Reporting the truth is not partisan.
Are reporters just to report whatever anyone says and not then discuss what that means? Are they supposed to give equal weight to every pronouncement?
If Henny Penny yells that the sky is falling, do reporters just report that? Do they report that there is no evidence that the sky is falling or has fallen? That HP is just trying to get attention?
Not every statement is of equal value and it should be the duty of reporters to let their readers/viewers know what the level of those statements are.
If you don't believe this then we are back to the bad old days of yellow journalism. The truth be damned.
2
The Republican Party has been moving the goal posts of deception for so long -- on Iraq, on tax policy, on corruption in the Bush administration, on gun policy, on voter fraud -- that it hardly feels triumphant for the New York Times to acknowledge their serial deceptions for what they are: lies. The damage is done, and the American voters who might once have benefited from an unequivocal rejection of lies by Republican politicians are now comfortably enveloped in a conservative media silo that has been meticulously truth-proofed.
27
I agree with those who said that the Times went too far here. Whether the allegation was true or not (and this being Trump, it probably was) it did read as an editorial. Calling Trumps statement a falsehood would have been a better choice. The paper has less impact when it starts to read like the New York Post.
3
He said it after it was proven not to be true. Many times. He LIED.
3
The New York Times has less impact when it refuses to print "all the news that's fit to print".
That Trump lied is news. Is it fit to print?
It would be unfit to not print it.
That Trump lied is news. Is it fit to print?
It would be unfit to not print it.
3
Trump wouldn't be in the strong position he is now if major media had called him out on unequivocal lies from the start. Granted, some of his outrageous statements are not verifiable but many of them are & have been.
281
I agree with the Public Editor and the Political Editor. When a statement is demonstrably untrue, it's appropriate to label it as a "lie." Certainly, care should be taken in using the word "lie," but there are times when its use is mandatory. Characterizing Donald Trump's birther accusation is undeniably such a time. Likewise, Matt Lauer should have branded Trump's claim of historic opposition to the Iraq war as a "lie." I would add another criteria for use of the word - when the speaker denies making a prior contrary statement, but there is video or audio tape of the speaker making a prior contrary statement.
117
I agree that the outrageous statements made at the recent "Birther Renunciation" news conference fall squarely into the category of LIE.
However, I'm disturbed that the NYT has glossed over the recent threat of physical violence (not the first) uttered by the GOP candidate: namely, the proposition to disarm Mrs. Clinton's secret service contingent and then "let's see what happens to her."
This is not, surely, a LIE but a direct, vicious threat of physical violence which, if uttered by John Q. Public, would elicit a swift visit from the FBI.
However, I'm disturbed that the NYT has glossed over the recent threat of physical violence (not the first) uttered by the GOP candidate: namely, the proposition to disarm Mrs. Clinton's secret service contingent and then "let's see what happens to her."
This is not, surely, a LIE but a direct, vicious threat of physical violence which, if uttered by John Q. Public, would elicit a swift visit from the FBI.
182
Unfortunately, in the real world, if police had to respond to every dumb statement by politicians and fools, we'd be immediately bankrupt. Deal with it.
"Its power in political warfare has so freighted the word that its mere appearance on news pages, however factually accurate, feels partisan"
So don't tell the truth when a politician lies?
So don't tell the truth when a politician lies?
29
Here is the problem. Trump lied many times. He said he received a letter from the NFL regarding the debates. That's a lie. He lied about obamas birth certificate many times and many different wa
22
"I think The Times should use this term [lie] rarely."
Whenever there's a death, the Times should use the term death (not "pass away" or "went to his/her reward").
Whenever there's genocide, the Times should use the term genocide (not "unfortunate events").
Whenever there's a lie, the Times should use the term lie. After all, a lie is far more innocent than a death or a genocide.
Whenever there's a death, the Times should use the term death (not "pass away" or "went to his/her reward").
Whenever there's genocide, the Times should use the term genocide (not "unfortunate events").
Whenever there's a lie, the Times should use the term lie. After all, a lie is far more innocent than a death or a genocide.
136
By the very standards you expound here, it was time to call it a lie long, long ago. Small credit to you for your belated recognition of blatant fact.
331
Look. Our country is staring into the abyss of a catastrophe: the election of a sociopath, a man who lies without conscience. This man will put our foreign policy up for sale to benefit his world-wide businesses (including in Russia) and, in short order, plunge our economy into chaos. Not that more proof of this is needed, but if you want to turn your hair grey, read the article in this week's New Yorker about what a Trump presidency would do to the economy. The article quotes Trump's recent comment that "I've borrowed knowing that you can pay back with discounts." In other words, Trump's fundamental view of how to do business is to routinely use the bankruptcy laws, or the threat of using them, to not fully repay his creditors. This philosophy carried over into the national economy would threaten the full faith and credit of the United States and, thereby, constitute "a major destabilizing development for financial markets. If [Trump] even alludes to renegotiating the [U.S.] debt, we will have ... a massive exodus of foreign investors from the U.S. Treasury market." And a crash. In light of this real and present danger to our security, it is time -- PAST TIME -- for the liar to be called a liar every time he lies. Which is every time he moves his lips. The Times has to do it on its front page. And Hillary must do it at the debates. Every time. LIar, liar pants on fire. Say it loud and say it proud. And say it often.
246
Trump has a very serious Narcissistic Personality Disorder. See, NIH, APA, and The Mayo Clinic for a list of symptoms. People with this disorder make extremely dangerous demagogues.
"That said, I think The Times should use this term rarely. Its power in political warfare has so freighted the word that its mere appearance on news pages, however factually accurate, feels partisan. It feels, as Ryan said, as if you’re playing the referee in frivolous political disputes."
What do you think the role of journalists is? If you refuse to convey factually accurate reporting for fear of appearing "partisan" you have abrogated you fundamental reason for existence. This warped attitude is intellectually bankrupt and a dereliction of the duty of the Fourth Estate. The NY Times should not simply present press releases uncritically. If the facts favor one side or the other, refusing to report that is itself partisan.
What do you think the role of journalists is? If you refuse to convey factually accurate reporting for fear of appearing "partisan" you have abrogated you fundamental reason for existence. This warped attitude is intellectually bankrupt and a dereliction of the duty of the Fourth Estate. The NY Times should not simply present press releases uncritically. If the facts favor one side or the other, refusing to report that is itself partisan.
170
So the Times appreciates clickbait as much as BuzzFeed or Gawker (used to), and lets Trumplethinskin engage in a steel cage death match for many months on end without ever bothering to check facts, often thoroughly absent. And NOW hands are wrung over "playing the referee in frivolous political disputes?"
I chose the "steel cage death match" metaphor advisedly, not only because of the fundamental mendacity of professional wrestling, but because Trumpty Dumpty has been involved in it. I guess nobody at the Times remembers the gimmick of Trumplethinskin "triumphantly" shaving the head of Vince McMahon in the middle of a ring? Nor that Vince and Linda McMahon might just be the most "generous" contributors to the Trumpty Dumpty Foundation. Not that the Times is following ANY of this...
I chose the "steel cage death match" metaphor advisedly, not only because of the fundamental mendacity of professional wrestling, but because Trumpty Dumpty has been involved in it. I guess nobody at the Times remembers the gimmick of Trumplethinskin "triumphantly" shaving the head of Vince McMahon in the middle of a ring? Nor that Vince and Linda McMahon might just be the most "generous" contributors to the Trumpty Dumpty Foundation. Not that the Times is following ANY of this...
6
"It's probably not surprising that the word's ("lie") swift emergence has provoked some readers."
No...what's surprising is that he's been doing it for more than 15 months without it being used by Times reporters.
No...what's surprising is that he's been doing it for more than 15 months without it being used by Times reporters.
433
....or anyone else in mainstream media....
3
Alan Chaprack is so correct, Trump has told so many lies that it has passed the point of absurdity and reached the totally incredulous. It has gotten to the point that even his sons now open their mouths and you know that a "lie" is the next thing coming. Hillary has been (mis) labeled as the "liar" but nothing that HRC has ever said comes close to the whoppers that the Trump Camp use as a norm.
What is almost as incredulous to me is that some people are questioning HRC based on "Lies" from Trump. Some are offended about the term used by HRC, (depl..) to describe the mobs that are pro Trump. Some of them defy the use of civil words in describing them. It was absurd to ask HRC to disarm her body guards yet Trump did it.
So NYT, call Trump by his earned name, "Liar!"
What is almost as incredulous to me is that some people are questioning HRC based on "Lies" from Trump. Some are offended about the term used by HRC, (depl..) to describe the mobs that are pro Trump. Some of them defy the use of civil words in describing them. It was absurd to ask HRC to disarm her body guards yet Trump did it.
So NYT, call Trump by his earned name, "Liar!"
7
David Farenhold at the Washington Post has been way ahead of everyone on this issue. Problem there is that he's pretty much alone.
4
I couldn't agree more. It is a word that, outside of direct quotes, should rarely be used in a news article. But in this case, no word other than "lie" is accurate to describe Trump's actions and words.
6
It's interesting to compare the refusal of Donald Trump to admit to having spread the birther lie for years with the New York Time's refusal to admit to having abdicated it's responsibility to consistently point out the lies Trump has been telling in his campaign for President. In the same way that Trump cannot wipe the slate clean and begin anew as a nominee, so the Times cannot escape culpability for it's egregious coverage all these months with its sudden reformation. Furthermore, and not unlike Trump's tactics, you attempt to minimize the damage you have wrought with months of under-reporting by citing readers who are now unhappy with what they see as over-editorializing in this report. You owe your readers a full-blown apology for the months of biased and insufficient coverage that failed to hold Donald Trump's record up to scrutiny while hounding Hillary Clinton over her email handling. The lack of depth of your election coverage has been astounding.
174
And perhaps add this: Republican Ted Cruz as a candidate for President was born in Canada, with one American parent, and his "Americanism" was not questioned. Clearly Obama had one American parent, so the criterion is parents, along with birthplace, either making one a "natural born citizen". Those facts / factors were not raised by Trump. And add to it: what religion you are is NOT a factor, as per the US Constitution "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." ARTICLE VI. Yet, Trump wondered if Obama's birth certificate had Muslim as a religion. So, it's a compound lie, appealing to hatred, rather than the inclusiveness of the American way.
"He doesn't have a birth certificate. He may have one, but there's something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim," Trump told Fox News in 2011. "I don't know. Maybe he doesn't want that."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/18/politics/trump-obama-muslim-birther/
"He doesn't have a birth certificate. He may have one, but there's something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim," Trump told Fox News in 2011. "I don't know. Maybe he doesn't want that."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/18/politics/trump-obama-muslim-birther/
11
The NYTimes self righteousness is getting rather nauseating.
The front page has practically become a full page advertisement for Hillary; when she "fibs", it's either not covered at all or it's back on page 22. When Trump is dishonest, the Times feels a special responsibility not only to call attention to it, but to explicitly label the statement as "false" , "a lie", or by using other judgmental words.
I am not saying the Times is wrong in attacking Mr Trump, but a semblance of balance would at least restore credibility to what used to be the preeminent news organization in the country.
The front page has practically become a full page advertisement for Hillary; when she "fibs", it's either not covered at all or it's back on page 22. When Trump is dishonest, the Times feels a special responsibility not only to call attention to it, but to explicitly label the statement as "false" , "a lie", or by using other judgmental words.
I am not saying the Times is wrong in attacking Mr Trump, but a semblance of balance would at least restore credibility to what used to be the preeminent news organization in the country.
1
for all the complaints about NYT bias, I doubt we could have this kind of "fair and balanced" debate on a Fox-sponsored platform.
3
That may be so; but having the "Public Editor" beat his/her chest over a single article when there is such blatant favoritism over a period of months seems disingenuous
1
I don't want to get into the question about whether it is ever possible to tell if a false statement is really made intentionally, but when a statement is clearly false, when it contradicts the data, I wish the Times would say so clearly and forcefully. And give a reference to the facts.
Not simply report that so and so said this or that.
I also feel that if someone makes an impossible promise, it should be pointed out that the promise IS impossible. For example, Trump's promise to add 25,000,000 new jobs in 8 years and at the same time restrict immigration is demographically impossible.
Finally I think the Times has an obligation to point out what has happened in the past when certain actions were taken. For example Trump has promised to completely pay off the national debt in 8 years. The Times should have pointed out that this has been done only once in 1835, and was followed in 1837 by our longest depression. They also should have pointed out here and in many other places that ALL 6 times the federal government has significantly reduced the debt by eliminating deficits, spending no more than than it took in, for more than 3 years, that period was immediately followed by one of our 6 depressions. But the Times seems determine to keep many facts secret.
Not simply report that so and so said this or that.
I also feel that if someone makes an impossible promise, it should be pointed out that the promise IS impossible. For example, Trump's promise to add 25,000,000 new jobs in 8 years and at the same time restrict immigration is demographically impossible.
Finally I think the Times has an obligation to point out what has happened in the past when certain actions were taken. For example Trump has promised to completely pay off the national debt in 8 years. The Times should have pointed out that this has been done only once in 1835, and was followed in 1837 by our longest depression. They also should have pointed out here and in many other places that ALL 6 times the federal government has significantly reduced the debt by eliminating deficits, spending no more than than it took in, for more than 3 years, that period was immediately followed by one of our 6 depressions. But the Times seems determine to keep many facts secret.
25
"Lie" - it's past time! get tougher!
16
Here here, it is about time a lie is called a lie. Why it went on five years unchallenged as lie is the sin.
95
That should say hear, hear.
The word is a loaded term and I still remember the feeling of horror when a member of Congress called our President a "liar" in the Chamber during a speech. I was horrified to hear the denigration included in that term and am still angry. Frankly the world is getting much more plain spoken and blunt these days and it is not something to be proud of at all.
3
"It feels partisan". That's exactly when the republican party's nominee is laughing at you: he got you. He got you to buckle. He got you carrying his water. He played you.
190
Trump has lied. He is dangerously unprepared in so many ways to be president. A man as determined not to learn, not to be educated, to speak outright falsehoods and lies, to denigrate those who work for our country and those who sacrifice as he has never done and never will done has no claim on the presidency.
The Times is right to call him out on all of this and more. The Times has proven that it is not afraid of his power or his bluster or his bombast. [See Sorkins piece today where corporate bigwigs are afraid of trump]. We need the Times as an institution to be the wall of protection from this demagogue.
All of that being said, the best place for what comes dangerously close to opinon, even if it is exposing the truth about this lying racist, is a strong, full page editorial. Just because Trump gets down into the mud, and lower, doesnt mean that the Times should join him in lowering its standards. Stay on the high road slamming him with righteous editorials and the Times will be the victor.
The Times is right to call him out on all of this and more. The Times has proven that it is not afraid of his power or his bluster or his bombast. [See Sorkins piece today where corporate bigwigs are afraid of trump]. We need the Times as an institution to be the wall of protection from this demagogue.
All of that being said, the best place for what comes dangerously close to opinon, even if it is exposing the truth about this lying racist, is a strong, full page editorial. Just because Trump gets down into the mud, and lower, doesnt mean that the Times should join him in lowering its standards. Stay on the high road slamming him with righteous editorials and the Times will be the victor.
2
@RML: You make a powerful, cogent argument, and I thank you for that.
The problem is that you impute to the Times standards upheld for many years, though not in recent decades, starting with the cosseting and only reluctant dispatch of a wanton fabulist, Jayson Blair, the duration of whose ability to mainline mendacity into the Times pages made the position of Public Editor spring to life. It continued through the journalistic malpractice of Judith Miller, who helped the Junior Bush Reign of Error sell an illegal war on wholly false pretenses. Miller brought to the fore the issue of anonymous sourcing, which got bad enough during the Jill Abramson editorship for Margaret Sullivan to start something called AnonyWatch. And it has only gotten much more flagrant under Dean Baquet's "leadership." So bad that "star" political reporters Amy Chozick and Patrick Healy each had front page "news" articles anonymously sourced of course, mooting a Joe Biden challenge to HRC for the Democratic nomination to fulfill Beau's dying wish, then a Bloomberg Third Party candidacy. Both of those turned out to be as fabulist as anything Blair ever got into print.
Standards? I feel like paraphrasing "High Sierra" fits here: "Standards? Ve don need no steenkin' standards!"
The problem is that you impute to the Times standards upheld for many years, though not in recent decades, starting with the cosseting and only reluctant dispatch of a wanton fabulist, Jayson Blair, the duration of whose ability to mainline mendacity into the Times pages made the position of Public Editor spring to life. It continued through the journalistic malpractice of Judith Miller, who helped the Junior Bush Reign of Error sell an illegal war on wholly false pretenses. Miller brought to the fore the issue of anonymous sourcing, which got bad enough during the Jill Abramson editorship for Margaret Sullivan to start something called AnonyWatch. And it has only gotten much more flagrant under Dean Baquet's "leadership." So bad that "star" political reporters Amy Chozick and Patrick Healy each had front page "news" articles anonymously sourced of course, mooting a Joe Biden challenge to HRC for the Democratic nomination to fulfill Beau's dying wish, then a Bloomberg Third Party candidacy. Both of those turned out to be as fabulist as anything Blair ever got into print.
Standards? I feel like paraphrasing "High Sierra" fits here: "Standards? Ve don need no steenkin' standards!"
2
If someone tells a lie every day, blatant, verifiable, important either as to issue or credibility, your paper should say "lie" every day. It might even go so far as to call the fabricator a "liar". Every day, if need be. Your job is to report the news. That someone tells lies, and what those lies are, and the propensity to lie, that's also news---at least if they're a candidate for president of the United States.
36
Well there are things called FACTS. When a candidate creates a narrative that intentionally ignores, distorts, subverts or refutes the facts then it is a LIE. Kids playing in the sandbox know this, why doesn't the Times?
When you coddle a dangerous man by not calling him out very clearly on lies, then you are engaging him on his terms and aiding and abetting his cause. You are complicit. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. Today the Times has an editorial on the voter fraud myth: isn't this a good example to reflect upon? Call it lies. Voter fraud LIES.
When you coddle a dangerous man by not calling him out very clearly on lies, then you are engaging him on his terms and aiding and abetting his cause. You are complicit. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. Today the Times has an editorial on the voter fraud myth: isn't this a good example to reflect upon? Call it lies. Voter fraud LIES.
37
Just pathetic ! If you are so conflicted to let Trump Lie every time he opens his mouth and have to have a group consultation to call a lie a lie just close up shop. You have already let Trump get to where he is. It is disgusting !
127
Great to see your tenure is carrying on in the best tradition of NY Times public editors - hemming and hawing a bit before ultimately patting your brave journalist colleagues on the back for their Cronkite-esque moral courage in the face of evil!
The truth is, Times coverage in election years is so excruciatingly and embarrassingly biased that it's hard to read. This year is no exception, but since the Republican nominee is so odious, maybe it doesn't stand out as much. I canceled my print subscription in 2012 after watching the paper savage Mitt Romney day after day as if acting on direct orders from the Obama campaign.
The truth is, Times coverage in election years is so excruciatingly and embarrassingly biased that it's hard to read. This year is no exception, but since the Republican nominee is so odious, maybe it doesn't stand out as much. I canceled my print subscription in 2012 after watching the paper savage Mitt Romney day after day as if acting on direct orders from the Obama campaign.
5
Seeing "lie" on the front page did shock me. The thing about that word is that it implies that you know what's in someone's mind. You know for sure that they are intentionally saying something that's wrong.
That's why charges that Hillary Clinton "lied" about her emails are wrong. If you tune into FOX News, they just call her a liar as if it is a fact. I am one who thinks she was describing what she understood to be true. And even though I was convinced that going into Iraq was wrong, from her position as a Senator being briefed by her own government, she may not have thought that that government was lying to her.
With Donald Trump, it seems fairly clear that he is lying, or, at the very least, that he doesn't care to look for the facts. He does not seem interested in the facts, but only in the effect of his words. But that is my hunch. Maybe he has advisors who he wouldn't imagine are lying to him.
While it may be almost certain he is lying, unless he says he is lying, the Times should refrain from expressing the sort of clairvoyance needed to proclaim someone's intention.
The story can clearly indicate the likelihood of his lying through its reporting, and even point out the fact that fact checking organizations have found more false statements coming from Donald Trump than from any major-party candidate in modern history. But the word "lie" gives the news an editorial tone that reduces the paper's influence and prestige, especially when used in a headline.
That's why charges that Hillary Clinton "lied" about her emails are wrong. If you tune into FOX News, they just call her a liar as if it is a fact. I am one who thinks she was describing what she understood to be true. And even though I was convinced that going into Iraq was wrong, from her position as a Senator being briefed by her own government, she may not have thought that that government was lying to her.
With Donald Trump, it seems fairly clear that he is lying, or, at the very least, that he doesn't care to look for the facts. He does not seem interested in the facts, but only in the effect of his words. But that is my hunch. Maybe he has advisors who he wouldn't imagine are lying to him.
While it may be almost certain he is lying, unless he says he is lying, the Times should refrain from expressing the sort of clairvoyance needed to proclaim someone's intention.
The story can clearly indicate the likelihood of his lying through its reporting, and even point out the fact that fact checking organizations have found more false statements coming from Donald Trump than from any major-party candidate in modern history. But the word "lie" gives the news an editorial tone that reduces the paper's influence and prestige, especially when used in a headline.
7
Isn't reporting that someone lied a straight repertorial fact, especially where it has been proved in more than one way that the statement was 1. false, and 2. intentionally uttered? Just asking. Let's stop wrining our hands and get on with reporting the truth, even where the truth is that a candidate is lying.
41
These are not normal times. A demagogue is about to ascend to the presidency and the future of our democracy, not to mention the fate of the world, is at risk because the masses have proven susceptible to the Fox/Breitbart/Talk Radio propaganda machine. It is morally imperative that a lie be called a lie at this time.
24
Fine with me... as long as you also state when Clinton lies, which would be almost as much as Trump.
2
Dear Brian,
Humbug!
Humbug!
9
No, there is quite a difference. Here are the summary bar charts amassed by Politifact.com for the D and R nominees for president. They show the accuracy of checked statements in the categories True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False, and Pants on Fire:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
4
It's interesting to note that in one instance Politifact downgraded one Clinton remark from "true" to "mostly true."
Why? Because she said Trump had declared bankruptcy four times — in fact it was six.
Why? Because she said Trump had declared bankruptcy four times — in fact it was six.
5
Perhaps, rather than use the word "lie" just refer to them as "trumpisms". The two are more or less synonymous.
---------------------------------------
Nice, but notice that the Times only used "lie" to refer to something from the past.
"Trump Gives Up A Lie"
Even that has a positive connotation.
Here, we have the world's worst serial liar (he even tells lies about his lies), yet that word isn't being used to describe his falsehoods.
Note: While Trump gave up on one lie, he quickly substituted another-- that Hillary had started the birther movement! (He and his surrogates not only promoted that, but then claimed--lying--that once the birth certificate was produced, he dropped the matter.)
Instead of the headline the Times used, which ended with the somewhat namby-pamby "refuses to repent", what about this?:
"Trump Gives Up One Lie, Now Pushes Others"
Only until we see headlines like that and stories bluntly dissecting his lies will we readers be convinced that the Times has finally turned the page and stopped handling Trump with kid gloves!
-----------------------------------
Nice, but notice that the Times only used "lie" to refer to something from the past.
"Trump Gives Up A Lie"
Even that has a positive connotation.
Here, we have the world's worst serial liar (he even tells lies about his lies), yet that word isn't being used to describe his falsehoods.
Note: While Trump gave up on one lie, he quickly substituted another-- that Hillary had started the birther movement! (He and his surrogates not only promoted that, but then claimed--lying--that once the birth certificate was produced, he dropped the matter.)
Instead of the headline the Times used, which ended with the somewhat namby-pamby "refuses to repent", what about this?:
"Trump Gives Up One Lie, Now Pushes Others"
Only until we see headlines like that and stories bluntly dissecting his lies will we readers be convinced that the Times has finally turned the page and stopped handling Trump with kid gloves!
-----------------------------------
94
Good, but this covers only one side of the issue. What should the media report when a campaign, like Trump's, accuses the other campaign (Clinton's) of "lying" about her emails, "lying" about the Clinton Foundation, "lying about Benghazi"? These assertions are regurgitated non-stop, under the assumption that if someone says it, it needs to be reported, when in fact, there is NO credible evidence that Clinton "lied" in any of the above situations.
Seems to me, these examples also should pass Ms. Spayd's smell test for what constitutes a "lie."
Seems to me, these examples also should pass Ms. Spayd's smell test for what constitutes a "lie."
111
Totally agree with you. Trump has been able to tell lie after lie in this campaign with very few members of the press challenging him on them. In my opinion, the press is totally complicit in his rise.
16
It is not long before you, Ms. Spayd, will be tagged as "Lying Liz." You may have offended his majesty by siding with those who believe him to be a damnable liar. Or, you may be accused of helping start the birther theory.
The trouble with your conclusion - that the times should use the word lie "rarely" - is that Trump lies all the time. Are you really suggesting that the Times should willingly desensitize itself to falsehood?
The trouble with your conclusion - that the times should use the word lie "rarely" - is that Trump lies all the time. Are you really suggesting that the Times should willingly desensitize itself to falsehood?
32
Thank you.
Maybe the Times should print a two column page-one column of trumps facts, one column of his fiction.
4
Presumably, the TImes will now be willing to state in its headlines that Hillary has repeatedly lied about whether the her home-brew email server had classified government material on it. She has repeatedly claimed that it did not when there is overwhelming evidence that it did.
3
Hardly overwhelming, as you assert. out of 30,000+ emails, 10 involved confidential information, but of those, only 3 were deemed to be possibly suspect. Three out of 30,000. You've swallowed a lie perpetrated by the Republican propaganda machine and supported by the mainstream media.
14
Amy, let's say: you can't remember ever sending an email with the word "armageddon" in it. So you say you have never used that word in an email. Then someone goes back through your last ten years of email and finds the word once or twice.
Were you lying? You didn't tell the truth. The truth is that you DID send an email like that. But you firmly believed you were telling the truth when you said you hadn't. That is not a lie -- that is being mistaken. Big difference in intention.
Were you lying? You didn't tell the truth. The truth is that you DID send an email like that. But you firmly believed you were telling the truth when you said you hadn't. That is not a lie -- that is being mistaken. Big difference in intention.
5
People lament this election has become a fact-free zone. Maybe we can start by calling a spade a spade and a lie a lie.
It's not an opinion to say a statement, which has zero factual basis and indeed is counter to all that is known, uttered with clear malice, is a lie. It would be inexcusable as a newspaper which documents events that actually happens, to give air to such views as news unless it also labels them for what they are.
Trump is a liar. His lies are dangerous and they are self-serving. They are told at best carelessly and at worst with malice aforethought. If you're going to go on a national stage and state things that are not true, it is not an "opinion" that you told a lie. It should be called out more often and if it at all has any weight as a moral and ethical failing, it is only by not waffling when its use as a label so strongly demands it.
It's not an opinion to say a statement, which has zero factual basis and indeed is counter to all that is known, uttered with clear malice, is a lie. It would be inexcusable as a newspaper which documents events that actually happens, to give air to such views as news unless it also labels them for what they are.
Trump is a liar. His lies are dangerous and they are self-serving. They are told at best carelessly and at worst with malice aforethought. If you're going to go on a national stage and state things that are not true, it is not an "opinion" that you told a lie. It should be called out more often and if it at all has any weight as a moral and ethical failing, it is only by not waffling when its use as a label so strongly demands it.
37
Trump tells lies continually and the Press often seems to be saying, "Oh, that scamp!" He said the unemployment rate is over 30% and that Americans pay the highest taxes in the world. These are not just exaggerations, they are bare-faced lies intended to convince the gullible that he is their Savior. I think the NYT needs to run a front-page article on the incredible list of outright lies and why he does it. It used to be important whether a candidate lies, but Trump gets a pass.
393
And Hillary has, for 35 years, been investigated for serious deceptions and errors, more recently involving 25 FBI agents and America's secrets. To many, she has proven she is unqualified for public office. Why she has gotten this far, that is some kind of unbelievable.
They're not even in the same league, cupcake, and the hysteria over emails, etc., is just smokescreen.
5
All the investigations of Hillary Clinton have turned up nothing except careless use of email. Trump tells flat out, obvious lies day after day.
Both sides do not do this.
Both sides do not do this.
5
"Trump gives up a lie" is not an editorial, Mr. Christiansen, it is a fact. "Refuses to repent" is also a fact.
Why would this even be up for debate?
Why would this even be up for debate?
46
Correction: It is a term...
1
The term "lie" should not be used rarely. It should be used whenever a candidate knowingly attempts to deceive. It is stern that need not be used lightly to be used frequently in characterizing Donald Trump's utterances. Your nose, Ms. Spayd, is a poor instrument of detection..
27
It is wise to use the word rarely. Not only because the damage it could do if ever used for something short than a plain lie, but also because a too frequent use would dull the meaning and power of the word.
It is important for the media to stay true to the facts. Fact-checking and telling people about it has fallen short in a time in which many media outlets have become not much more than a loud voice for politicians to tell the people whatever they want. Media has to do its job and fact-check and explain stuff to the people. And when they find a lie, they should be able to call it what it is. That's why there are journalists and not only typists.
It is important for the media to stay true to the facts. Fact-checking and telling people about it has fallen short in a time in which many media outlets have become not much more than a loud voice for politicians to tell the people whatever they want. Media has to do its job and fact-check and explain stuff to the people. And when they find a lie, they should be able to call it what it is. That's why there are journalists and not only typists.
6
Now we have to tread carefully in calling a lie a lie? Because it "looks" partisan? Does that mean that for once and for all perception has been permanently elevated over fact? This one should be easy. If a declarative statement is disproven by demonstrable and overwhelming evidence, then it is untrue -- a lie. A person is being a liar if that person continues to make such a statement in the face of that demonstrable and overwhelming evidence. It matters not if the word "lie" and "liar" are offensive to some or even all of us. If the truth and accuracy matter most -- and they should especially in a free society that wishes to be well governed -- then there should be no parsing of those characterizations. Your reputation should be ruined if you insist on trucking with them and -- like the child in "The Emperor Has No Clothes" -- you should be called out for them loudly and without reservation.
423
Exactly. It is entirely logical to question the motives of the Times when they allow lies to slide by. Are they in the bag for the republican party's nominee? Did he buy a stake in the paper?
16
Here is the problem. Trump has lied many times and these are provable and outright. He said he received a letter from the NFL regarding the debate times. He lied about having people in Hawaii who turned up unbelievable things about Obama. In fact there are many statements that trump makes which are simple provable lies. Another example is that Christie said he knew nothing of the bridge lane closings. This may be a simple provable lie soon. However when Obama said you could keep your doctor and that was true for 99% of the people it was labeled as a lie. Some will argue it was a lie, my opinion is different. This is the territory where a lie is not a lie or is it?
6
This whole debate is an indication of the problem at the core of our political press - namely, a reluctance to do the most fundamental job of a journalist, which is to hold politicians and government accountable to the public.
To claim that the labeling of a man who regularly lies as a liar is partisan is remarkably short-sighted and shows an incredible misunderstanding of the very purpose of the press. I would agree that an unintentional misrepresention of facts, or even many of them, does not make a person a liar and that such a person should not be so labeled in the press. But that person would properly be called "ignorant." As for a candidate that does deliberately misrepresent the truth, or who can reasonably be assumed to be acting deliberately because the facts are uncontested and widely known, he or she should definitely be called a liar. The press must call it like it is, not pursue the ridiculous, elusive, and unattainable notion of "balance," when politicians and their words and actions are the subject.
To claim that the labeling of a man who regularly lies as a liar is partisan is remarkably short-sighted and shows an incredible misunderstanding of the very purpose of the press. I would agree that an unintentional misrepresention of facts, or even many of them, does not make a person a liar and that such a person should not be so labeled in the press. But that person would properly be called "ignorant." As for a candidate that does deliberately misrepresent the truth, or who can reasonably be assumed to be acting deliberately because the facts are uncontested and widely known, he or she should definitely be called a liar. The press must call it like it is, not pursue the ridiculous, elusive, and unattainable notion of "balance," when politicians and their words and actions are the subject.
4
"Another example of an objection to objectivity, according to communication scholar David Mindich, was the coverage that the major papers (most notably the New York Times) gave to the lynching of thousands of African Americans during the 1890s. News stories of the period often described with detachment the hanging, immolation and mutilation of people by mobs. Under the regimen of objectivity, news writers often attempted to balance these accounts by recounting the alleged transgressions of the victims that provoked the lynch mobs to fury. Mindich argues that this may have had the effect of normalizing the practice of lynching.[9]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity