NYT serves its readership well when it avoids descriptions of statements of fact that imply the intent of the maker. Use of the word "lie" or "liar" goes to a judgment of character, that judgment should be left to the reader.
2
You say "For one thing, it assumes that someone knew the statement was false."
But the word "lie" is equally applicable to cases where the person in question doesn't know, and doesn't care, whether something is true. In other, intellectual laziness and sloppiness should not give someone a free pass.
2
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me 3,000 times, it must be The New York Times.
Trump uses outright, bald faced lying as a communication strategy to lay down false narratives, and it works.
Dean Baquet is, to use a military expression, still fighting the last war, when lying and liars were, uh, outliers. With Trump it his weapon of choice.
"Sticking to the facts" also means calling out when the facts are intentionally not in evidence.
12
Yes, calling Trump's false statements lies, such as the one claiming that Germany's crime rate was "way up," assumes that the president knowingly did so. However, one would expect that if it were a reckless but honest mistake he would admit his error and apologize. His failure to do so, along with his well established pattern of lying, suggests that this "alternative fact" was a lie.
3
"For one thing, it assumes that someone knew the statement was false". Are you kidding me, Trump knows his statements are false which would justify calling him a liar.
The other other alternative is to believe that he doesn't check facts before he opens his mouth. We know he doesn't read and his only interest lies in enriching himself and his family.
How do we Trump and those in the WH are lying, their mouth is open.
5
It’s time for The Times to rethink its position. Our current president is not a “normal” president. He lies knowingly, such as about the genesis of the order separating immigrant children from the parents. He lies about things he should, as president, have some semblance of knowledge about, such as about who, actually, winds up paying the costs of increased tariffs on imports (i.e., consumers). He is such an inveterate liar that his own lawyer has said he doesn’t want Trump to appear before Mueller because that would just lead Trump into a perjury trap!
Continuing to pretend that this president does not lie constantly is an abdication of your vital role in the preservation of our democracy. Stop being so spineless, and obfuscating (lying about?) your own reasons for not using the L word. Call a lie a lie.
9
The first time you make a blatantly incorrect statement, its just that - maybe intentional, maybe ignorant, maybe mistated. When you repeat it despite large media attention diverted to demonstrating that it was false, that's a "bald faced lie" and the NYT should lead with exactly that wording.
4
Calling this so-called president out as a liar is terrifically disrespectful to liars around the globe. We have Commander in chief Bone Spur to make enemies for us and he doesn't need help.
3
You do your readers and the republic a disservice by "obfuscating" when someone is lying, plain and simple.
3
Call a lie a lie. This is not any normal politician trying to make a point. This is a pathological liar that must be called out.
3
'Using the world "lie" repeatedly could feed the mistaken belief that we are taking political sides.' good gravy this POTUS lies multiple times every day and the NYT is scared that people would assume it was taking sides? Trump voters ALREADY think you are taking sides cuz that's what Trump tells them. Time to speak TRUTH to your readers and to power-we are in a more and more perilous situation each day, and in case the Editorial Board has missed it, POTUS is a fascist.
4
The President has lied his entire life. He's lied to subcontractors, he's lied to potential investors, he's lied to the marks to whom he tried to sell steaks and vodka and education. To try to say "we can't divine his intent" is disingenuous.
He knows very well he's lying and so does the Times.
7
This makes no sense. “We’ll demonstrate that it’s a lie but we won’t call it a lie because our readers might be confused if we call a lie a lie? Or it shows we're 'taking sides'"?
REPORT THE TRUTH.
Eliminating the role of the Public Editor was a huge mistake, as evidenced here, with the lack of nuance and clarity.
The NYTimes continues to fail it's readers and America, daily.
But, boy, those documentaries and book deals sure must be nice!
Grifters.
3
As much as I love your reportage on travel, the arts, food … I had to cancel my subscription last week for your spineless abdication of your duty regarding this so-called administration. The stakes are even higher than when the GW Bush clan pillaged our republic (the coverage of which you also bungled criminally, and the effects of which still cripple us). When we most need the resources and influence of The NYT, you betray us. I just don't get it.
3
It's actually really simple. If he stands by on a statement after being shown it's demostratibly false then he's lying. Call a spade a spade. You're embarrassing yourself.
8
It doesn't really matter whether the NY Times says that Trump lies because the readers know that he does and the non-readers will likely never know because Fox News will not tell them. Now readers may think that Fox News is loose with the facts, but they are not. For instance, Fox News can say that Trump said that Obama was not born in the US. That is a fact.
3
Out of touch editorials like this are the reason why the Times has become irrelevant.
Dear Editors, please stop being enablers of this criminal administration. If you can't call a lie a lie, then you're part of of the problem.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/26/1775583/-The-problem-with-the...
7
When reporting on a false statement by the president, you should lead with the facts before printing the misleading statement. Never print a false statement without preceding it with the truth.
10
If I say the holocaust did not happen;then I would be lying unless I believed it did not happen? This what you mean by the judicious use of the word liar. The president has more fact checking ability at his beck and call than all of the NYT and Washington Post together. Is he surrounded by sycophants,cowards,or fools who are not about to point out his errors of fact? Time to tell it like it is as the Donald's supporters love about him to tell it like it is
5
Perhaps the Times should start these types of stories out with what is known to be true, then report what Trump said.
5
Although it is obvious that Trump tells many many blatant lies that absolutely ought to be labelled as such, I don't recall that he ever said outright that Obama had not been born in the US. Instead, his "birther" campaign was manipulative and suggestive, pandering to those who wanted to believe the lie: "I have investigators in Hawaii and you wouldn't believe what they're finding"; "I hope that it isn't true, but a reliable source told me..."; "There's something about that birth certificate that Obama doesn't want you to see"; and so on and on.
Since Trump clearly doesn't mind telling outright lies in other contexts, I don't know he relied (as far as I can recall, and I'm open to correction) on suggestion and innuendo with this subject. Maybe because this was before the election, and he didn't yet realize how easy it was to tell complete whoppers and still be believed by his base.
Or maybe it was a sort of beginner's trial run, like the bullying and pet abuse shown by a child who will grow up to be a full-fledged psychopath.
2
There are other words to describe such false statements such as "slander", "libel", "defamation" or "slanderous", "defamatory", "libellous". I suppose libel would be the correct term for a twitter statement. All of these are not merely "false" but are potentially liable to civil legal action; potentially much more severe than merely making a false statement.
So, when reporters' fact checking show that these other words apply, and when these false claims are clearly part of a systematic strategy (which could be demonstrated by simple statistical analysis), the simple label of a "false claim" is misleading because it understates the magnitude of the harm caused by the false claim. In such cases, the reporter should label the behaviour to reflect both the falsehood and the magnitude of the harm caused by that falsehood.
1
Dean Baquet said, "And using 'lie' repeatedly could feed the mistaken notion that we’re taking political sides. That’s not our role." The Times' coverage of Trump, however, demonstrates that it DOES take political sides. It's simply disingenuous to claim otherwise.
Look, Trump lies, consistently and without restraint. The Times needs to step up and call it what it is.
4
What is wrong with the editors at the Times? The rational presented doesn't hold water. We all know these are purposeful lies. Your collective acquiescence is integral to Trump's strategy, which is working, thanks to all of you. You really do need to point out that this man lies constantly. It is not a mistake, it is not an accident, it is continual, purposeful and effective. Put a stop to it.
Your position is similar to those who say we really should not confront Trump operatives on the streets. You are all sadly mistaken if you think polite discourse will provide any resistance whatsoever to what is happening today in America. History is full of examples of this failed tactic.
Your duty is to call it as it is and you fail when you do not.
4
Seems to me that when it's a person on your own team who lied, they "misspoke". When it's someone from the other team, they lied. Want to call Trump a liar when he lies, no complaints from me. Just apply the same standard to members of team D as well.
1
"The word “lie” is very powerful."
And that's the point, because Trump's lies are very powerful. It's not political to point out that something (OK everything in this case, but I digress) Trump says is a lie, but it is a breach of journalism to try to clean it up with a euphemism. His lies are not fit to print unless they are called lies. Do your job.
3
I understand that the Times is seeking to be a standard bearer for ethical and honest reporting. However, I think their stance on this issue is to conflate elitist intellectualism with moral clarity. We will, I fear, look back through the lens of history and rue the day that the media (times) failed to report in a crystal clear tone that this President is a pathological liar. Parsing through the Presidents statements and labelling them "Falsehoods" renders the reporting both sterile and impotent but not without consequence. Failing to call this what every common sense citizen labels it is an act of omission that strengthens the President hand; paradoxically further contributing to the erosion of great institutions caused by this Presidents pernicious lies.
2
Hannah Arendt, in a 1973 Interview:
What really makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other kind of dictatorship to rule is that the people are not informed. If everyone always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but that no one believes anything at all anymore — and rightly so, because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, to be ‘re-lied,’ so to speak.” A lying government pursuing shifting goals has to ceaselessly rewrite its own history, leaving people not only dispossessed of their ability to act, but also of their capacity to think and to judge, and with such a people you can then do what you please.”
8
I find myself bored at attempts to analyze the uterrances of the trumpian being to apply standards of truth or falsity to them. Most of those vocalizations are not at all true but they rarely meet the standard of clear fallacy. There are lacunae to his attempts at sentences as well as grammatical barbarisms and logical inconsistencies so that standards of clear logical analysis do not apply. Rather, the sounds that emanate from his general area are a species of sentimental appeal the purpose of which is to assure his followers that they can freely express the most vicious and reprehensible thoughts without consequence.
3
According to The Washington Post database on Trump's false or misleading statements since his taking the oath of office, the number has surpassed 3,250, an average around 6.5 per day. The man's mendacity surpasses that of other politicians by a country mile. Debating about whether to call him a liar is as useful as counting angels on the head of a pin. He degrades the presidency on a daily basis. He coarsens our political discourse with smears and racism, bending to his base of supporters, willfully disregarding established policies and precedents, and sending dictates, ultimatums, and threats by tweet-storm. He ignores his obligation under the Constitution to "take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed...." I applaud the NYTimes's increased calling out of President Trump's false statements in its headlines and stories, even at the cost of devaluing the L word -- this man has no shame.
3
As a Times subscriber, I'm not sure it is worth continuing to support a newspaper that is afraid to tell the truth. According to the article, the standard for labeling a lie is only where "It was provable, it was offensive, it was flagrant, and to write around it would have been silly." Yet Trump makes offensive, flagrant, offensive claims on a daily basis, but the Times refuses to call them lies. From the Mueller investigation to immigration to the FBI, Trump lies on a daily basis. We are not talking exaggerations or hyperbole, but fictional, conspiratorial deceit intended to destroy his enemies. When the paper of record refuses to call out Trump's lies, it inadvertently gives credence to the idea that there may be some truth to Trump's claims, or that his lies are from innocent misbelief.
This is no time for weak-kneed reporting. By attempting to avoid the appearance of bias, you are being biased...in favor of Trump. Objectivity requires you to refute his false statements with the truth, which starts by truthfully labeling his lies.
4
Usually when his lips are moving, his tiny fingers are on Twitter , are solid clues that all is a lie.
2
I'm sure the Trump administration will thank you for your collaboration.
4
Instead of giving the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt before you label their statements lies, you should use a reverse procedure to judge.
Especially with Trump himself, you should assume you need to call his statements lies, unless you really think he could possibly not know that he:
- made something up on the spot
- contradicted what he said an hour or a day ago
- has no facts to back up what he says
- is only saying what makes him look good
3
When he lies every day (and he does), and you report on him every day (you do), then you need to use the word "lie" every day. This is not rocket science. Anything else is giving him a pass.
4
This posting seems to suggest that the word "lie" is in limited supply and the NY Times needs to reserve the term for only the most egregious offenses. Those in power have been taking advantage of this apprehension and have increased their frequency of lying to levels not seen in my lifetime. It is being done with relative impunity.
This statement makes clear that Times leadership is under the impression that using the word "lie" says more about its own impartiality than it says about real events taking place in the real world. That point of view is a disservice to your readers and this country. If the Times were to reinstate a Public Editor, perhaps we'd all have more faith that an appropriate balance was being struck - and that the Times was taking this issue seriously.
2
With master propagandists in the "people's house”, concentrated outrage sometimes lasts only until the next distraction in the news cycle. DOJ investigations and "voter integrity" commissions are founded on unprecedented, egregious Presidential untruths. National policy chases untrue statements by the President on a daily basis, and public sentiment towards immigrants is shaped by Presidential falsehoods.
A true national security issue:contingency plans for Twitter, Facebook, other outlets which disseminate information to the American public in a time of crisis. For all the talk of "fake news", are there emergency response plans if verifiable lies emanate from the White House during a national crisis? If lies are regularly disseminated from the Oval Office when there is no crisis, what responsibility does Twitter have to the nation in a situation of verifiable lies should there be a national emergency, real or synthesized?
We had elections subverted in 2016 via sophisticated algorithms and foreign interventions manipulating social media. A report by Mueller might threaten this Presidency with eviction, and subsequent executive actions, firings, or a “wag the dog” military intervention may follow. There is ample historical precedents of nationalistic leaders declaring martial law and overthrowing constitutions via lies in response to manufactured calamity. The dissemination of demonstrable lies by the executive branch should be an issue before Congress.
3
I understand the statement: "The word “lie” is very powerful. For one thing, it assumes that someone knew the statement was false. Another reason to use the word judiciously is that our readers could end up focusing more on our use of the word than on what was said. And using “lie” repeatedly could feed the mistaken notion that we’re taking political sides. That’s not our role."
But with this president it is hard to know what is a lie vs what is lack of knowledge. He has shown to deliberately lie about matters of finance, romance, harassment so thinking that he is lying at any given time is a fair assumption to make.
2
I get into a fair number of disputes with fact-challenged people. My standard is that if a false statement is clearly self-serving and clearly corrected, and the person making the statement could not plausibly have missed the correction, it becomes fair to call a repetition of that falsehood 'a lie.' That leaves plenty of Trump lies to call out, and culls the whoppers he tells only once.
Might be simpler to note when he tells the truth.
8
Lies are lies. It is"democracy" and "president" and "American values" that have lost their meaning in the Trump era.
3
Your claim that to call something a lie "assumes that [the accused liar] knew the statement was false" shows how thoroughly you have failed to take the measure of Trump, as does your comparison of his lies to the "obfuscations and exaggerations" of ordinary politicians.
Lies are Trump's meat and drink, they are the air he breathes. To say he has contempt for the truth is not quite right; he doesn't even really acknowledge the truth. His consciousness is consumed by power and status. There is no room left for the truth, even to feel contempt for it.
But in its own way, in its white glove treatment of Trump's foundational mendacity, the Times risks displaying its own form of contempt for the truth. It seems you would prefer to play the role of etiquette judge for national affairs, when the President of the United States long ago kicked the very notion of etiquette aside, and proceeded on his destructive way. By holding to those shattered standards of etiquette, you give cover to his destruction.
14
It is at least arguable, whether or not Trump was wrong about the crime wave in Germany. So to call what he said a "lie" is presumptuous and as the NYT suggested, would reveal an inherent bias in the reporting
Here's why trump's comment about Germany has some basis in fact. Based on Data published by the BBC in January, crime rose 10.4% - it stated, "The report used statistics from Lower Saxony - regarded as an average state - where police saw an increase of 10.4% in reported violent crimes in 2015 and 2016.
Based on figures from the state's interior ministry, which keeps a separate record of alleged crimes by migrants, the report suggested that 92.1% of this increase was attributable to migrants."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42557828
1
Yes, Trumpy lies. All the time. It's important to catalogue each lie. Yet, his fan base just loves the lies. To them, this lying and loutishness comes across as Trumpy sticking it to the elites.
Therefore, it's more important to headline the deleterious effects of his policy. These policies affect all and often his fan base. Details matter, of both the short-term and long-term effects. If there's a way out of this quagmire, it's the realization by Trumpsters that he's simply a terrible thing that's happened them, specifically.
3
It is the job of the press to reveal the truth, and shirking your responsibility to identify a lie as a lie, under some guise of being "objective," merely furthers the lie.
14
I've been thinking that maybe the Times can do a daily section called "Today in Trump's Tweets". Print each tweet and have it fact checked. That way - the tweets don't need to rise to to the importance of a headline - which rarely uses "falsely claimed' or 'a lie'. Make the tweets less important. They are just the rumblings a senile old man.
4
I agree with the use of "falsely claimed" rather than "lied" in most cases, since "lie" assumes the speaker knew he or she was telling an untruth. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the president has no idea what crime is doing in Germany and just assumes it must be going up since they allow some refugees, etc., to come into the country.
I think assuming this president has any particular factual knowledge is risky since he's so incurious, ignorant, and misinformed, so he mostly falsely claims things.
Now, when he said that it wasn't his voice on that notorious tape, that was clearly a lie, since he would have personal knowledge that what he was saying was false, and he had already said it was him. In that case, he should be called a liar.
2
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The primary failure to elucidate is not failing to use “lie” or “false claim” correctly, it is failing to put the President’s statements in the context of “propaganda”. Each statement may or may not be a “lie” as Mr. Baquet chooses to define it, but there are small threads in a tapestry of information war against the American people.
Rather than worrying about how to be label a given statement, step back. The headline should read something like: “In continuing misinformation campaign, President’s propaganda expands to misrepresent crime in Germany.” (As one example.)
I would be very interested in whether this resonates with the Editorial Board.
3
It is a dilemma. But, how about Trump's statements recently that he was powerless to fix the separation of families at the border? Or that the result was legally compelled by the "Democrats laws." The only way you can justify not calling these lies is to assume Trump is ignorant and has no knowledge of his actions from a week ago. If someone robs a bank and then 5 days later says he didn't do it do you call that a false statement or do you assume he knows what he did and is lying? Every normal person would say his denial is a lie. Stop engaging in hyper technical parsing and call a lie a lie.
11
Please a spade a spade. Mr. Trump makes false statements fully knowing they are false. That makes him Liar in Chief. If you do not want to use the word lie then assign 1 mm growth to his nose for each lie and publish daily updates to the size of his nose
2
Dear Times:
I'll make it simple for you. Trump is a pathological liar so you can call him a liar anytime and it will be accurate.
11
May I suggest "mendacious", "mendaciously" and "mendacity."
"This is the Netherlands, you have to answer questions."
—A Dutch reporter to Peter Hoekstra, U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands
Remember that?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/11/netherlands-holland-pete...
How splendid it would be if our reporters in the U.S. would say, just as simply, to Trump and to his operatives, each and every time they lie:
"You're lying, and you can't lie to the American people."
11
There's at least one moment everyday for calling Trump a liar. Trump full well knows they are lies. Shouldn't our president be held accountable for purposely misleading the people. This was the Steve Bannon strategy, if you lie all the time, you won't be called for it. If you only lie sometimes, they will hold you accountable. It worked beautifully.
2
"I don’t think we should use that word every day in The New York Times." Why not? What journalistic principle dictates that the number of times lies are called lies depends on a quota rather than the actual number of lies?
"Our readers could end up focusing more on our use of the word than on what was said. And using “lie” repeatedly could feed the mistaken notion that we’re taking political sides." So telling the truth should be limited by the readers' misguided reactions?
Think about it! This kind of self-censorship ultimately makes frequent and unchecked lying pay off!
6
"For years, he had pushed the false idea that Obama wasn’t born here. It was clearly untrue, but Trump said it over and over." Yet even here as you describe his most clearly propagated LIE, you cover it up and water it down by calling it a "false idea???" Drop the cover words and call it what it is, A LIE.
11
Perhaps this publication should partner with other reputable publications that keep a tally of the lies and falsehoods uttered by Trump and a "pants on fire" award.
1
He needs to be called a liar repeatedly. He is responsible to know the truth and convey the truth to his citizenry unless there is a strategic reason that requires stealth. We now know that this man has very few reasons for anthing beyond endearing hinself to the talk-radio crowd so ge may in turn bask in their toxic adulation. We must call him a liar because he is a liar. In fact, he should be labeled a liar, just as he chooses to label others... Lying Hillary and Lying Chuck Schumer come to mind.
Because it would violate every canon of journalistic ethics, I can't see the NYT henceforth calling him President Liar or Lying Donny, unless his name was formally changed to that. Therefore, I propose thant concerned citizens put forward a proposed Constitutional amendment to change the lying windbag's name officially.
1
When so called news organizations like Fox News and Breitbart tell lies constantly and incessantly about the most consequential issues I think it is time for the NY Times and all other news organizations who want to be called journalists rather than entertainers to call a lie, a lie. Think about Pizzagate. Think about calling the grieving parents of Sandy Hook "crisis actors". We are in an existential crisis right now in the world and here at home between the uber wealthy and their fascist underlings and justice, decency, fairness, honestly, and equality. Which side is the NY Times going to be on? Given that you demonized MLK back in the 1960's when he suggested the Vietnam War was immoral I already know the answer. You'll always be on the side of those with money and power.
3
In his treatise On Lying (De Mendacio) Augustine said a lie is any pronouncement made with intent to deceive. Is that a fair standard? I think so. Does the NYT even have a coherent standard? Or have the spirit of “without fear or favor”? Sad to say I do not believe so.
4
In Jan. 1957 I started High school. Lived in Brooklyn school in Manhattan. I started reading the Times on my 3.5 hours subway ride then and have been either subscriber, print or online, or newsstand buyer since then. I even had Sunday Times Fed X'd to me in an Opium Den Brothel in Bombay, India. I can state unequivocally that Dean Baquet is the most mealy mouthed Ex. Editor the Times has had in those 60+ years. A lie is a lie and Trump lies more than any person, not just politician, in history of America. Maybe the World. And you feed us the NY Post level drivel? Go Away.
11
Baquet: "Most politicians obfuscate or exaggerate at times. But I wouldn’t use the word 'lie' in a news story in cases like that."
obfuscate: "render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible"
exaggerate: "represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is"
Neither of these is what Trump does. Trump makes things up out of whole cloth. That is not obfuscation or exaggeration. That is lying.
There; I've refuted Baquet's first argument. Since it has been refuted, it can no longer be used as a valid excuse.
Baquet: "Another reason to use the word judiciously is that our readers could end up focusing more on our use of the word than on what was said."
Mr. Baquet, please explain why that is the case. If you can't support that claim, it can no longer be used as a valid excuse either.
Baquet: "And using 'lie' repeatedly could feed the mistaken notion that we’re taking political sides."
No, it would show that you're being accurate. You seem more concerned about the perception of taking sides than actually presenting the truth. In other words, you're afraid of right-wingers.
Now that all your arguments have been refuted, Mr. Baquet, you can either come up with no reasons, or you can give in and call a lie a lie. Thanks for reading.
1
For me, it goes back to what Trump said to Billy Bush in the Hollywood Access tape. "Billy, look, you just tell them and they believe it. That's it: you just tell them and they believe. They just do."
I can see the point of not calling everything that isn't true a lie, but perhaps mentioning that's it's not true. I like the commenter's suggestion that the press should simply stop reporting Trump's lies when he's talking about something that isn't official policy. I think ignoring him would be the best way to eventually shut him up. For the same reason, I think the press should stop showing up for Sarah Sanders' pathetic farces of daily briefings.
2
I agree with your readers who would like for you to call a lie a lie. Certainly, there have been more times when it's appropriate use of the word than the one time you cited as an example. Language is cheapened when you give Trump a pass. He lies so much and is so rarely called on it. The New York Times is the national paper of record. You are writing history. A hundred years from now, when grad students look up your reportage of Trump, they will wonder why you so often gave him a linguistic pass.
1
"Most politicians obfuscate or exaggerate at times."
Granted this happens but generally not 3, 4 or more times a day. To gloss over trump's lies and those of his staff and administration serves no purpose but instead lends an air of some credibility to them. Trump knows he is lying and so does his staff. He is not miss-speaking ( a media invention if ever there was one). The only way to confront a chronic liar is head on.
6
"Trump knows he is lying..." Interestingly, this is frequently untrue. He is so incompetent and stupid, that occasionally he misstates what he intended and inadvertently spews out a truth. Generally, when this happens, he'll later reissue the statement in its intended untrue form. Sociopaths/psychopaths can be entertaining, but they should never be in charge of anything.
2
No, many of Trump’s claims are patently absurd! So absurd, in fact, that one can’t help but think that it’s impossible he doesn’t know he’s lying. If an example exists, take a look at the rambling Paris Climate Accord statement he made on the 1st of June last year. There is so much misinformation in it, it’s hard not believe it’s actually disinformation.
But clearly NYT isn’t the only news organisation not using the word ‘lie,’ and I do appreciate the ethical concerns brought up in this article. It’s true that we don’t “know” he’s actively lying.
It’s just unfortunate that his supporters don’t appreciate this subtlety; they claim the softness of a journalists language implies that he’s hiding behind complicated words that only “sound” bad. Of course, this article admits outright that implication is the intention. It’s justification, though, is lost on some Trump supporters.
2
Baquet does a pretty poor job of defending the paper's practice of only rarely describing Trump's statements as lies.
First, there are many, many cases in which the Times and the rest of us have good evidence, not just that what Trump says is false, but that he knows it is. So, even granting Baquet's point about the nature of lying — that one lies only when one knows that one's statement is false — we still have no explanation of why the Times describes Trump's statements as lies so infrequently.
Second, although Baquet claims that the paper's hesitancy is a function of the power of the word "lie", it is unclear why this should count against using it. What's wrong with a powerful word, if it is the most accurate one available? "Lie" is powerful because, in most circumstances, it is morally wrong to lie. To regularly call Trump a liar is thus to convey that Trump regularly engages in immoral behavior. Baquet is probably right that this would fuel the impression of anti-Trump bias on the part of the Times, but the alternative is failing to accurately report the news: if Trump is lying a lot of the time about important issues, the paper of record should be telling us so.
Finally, Baquet's worry about readers potentially focussing too much on the word "lie" rather than on the things Trump is lying about seems silly. It's the paper's refusal to appropriately apply the word that is, at this stage, a distraction.
12
It occurs to me that maybe there is a reason the mainstream media has focused on what Trump *says* rather than what he *does*.
Maybe by focusing attention on his outlandish self-aggrandizement, embellishments, and outright lies, the media encourages him to do more of the same instead of actually taking any action. Maybe this is what the media *wants* because they theorize that any actual action (like a transgender military ban, trade war, or Muslim ban) would be worse than a mere cavalcade of calumny.
Maybe the Times is making a deliberate choice *not* to report on what Trump and his administration actually do. It's true that the President's policy announcements are untrustworthy and that it might serve a more obvious news goal to report on what executive orders are actually signed, what memos are actually sent, and what members of the executive branch (those who haven't quit yet) are actually accomplishing day-to-day.
But maybe they have a higher goal in mind -- guided by a strong moral compass -- which keeps them deliberately focusing away from the action. It's hard to imagine a public-service Pulitzer for this behavior, but maybe some partisan folks might see it as a very smart tactic. The more he Tweets, the less he tears everything apart, I suppose they are thinking?
It's not just intent. If he says something which is not true but that he believes to be true (e.g., Obama was born elsewhere) it would not be a lie by your standards. But if, as in this case, he has the wherewithal to discover the truth but does not take advantage of it, and allows his listeners to assume that he has in fact examined the evidence, that is a lie. He may believe it to be true but he gives the untruth a false veneer of plausibility by insinuating that he, with his immense powers of office, has found it to be true.
2
How is it taking a political side if you are stating the truth? Is it not the role of the media to inform and report accurately as a service to the public. In avoiding to state the fact, the media becomes accomplice in the lie especially when you report or print the false statements verbertum. If the media has not found away to address this issue they have succeeded in promoting the impunity with which people in power, and the president in particular, have made it as a necessity to mislead for their personal gains. What you call political side is in fact not to offend the other side, a code name for rating and/ readership that is feedin the false equivalence. The Stone essay today is clear on the fact that you can have your opinion but not the right to force it on the public when it is knowable and provably false which is what the media continuously do. Bad for democracy, bad for governance.
8
Fair enough but then I don’t understand that you regularly (not always, but often) report politicians’ stated motivation as their actual motivation, as opposed to reporting correctly that they only claim to be motivated by what they stated. That’s mind reading as bad as trying to guess if someone knew they were telling a falsehood.
1
The term "lie" implies certain things about the intentions and intentionality of the person making the statement. If you have evidence regarding their intentions, I think the word lie is appropriate. If not, false claims seems fine to me. We are not dumb, we know what it means if someone makes false statements time amd time again.
2
A recent article in the NYT states "Any given opinion that someone expresses is either wholly true, partly true or false." Many of Trump's statements contain a grain or a few grains of truth and many emphasize the part to defend the veracity of the whole. In my opinion the use of hyperbole is a form of lying.Our President regularly makes hyperbolic statements,,,,
1
I get that journalists should not offer conclusive and speculative personal opinions. However, when reporting on the President of the United States, the following facts would be revealing enough: the President initially stated that he had no control over the separation of families at the border, blamed the Democrats and took the position that only Congress could change the existing law and his hands were tied. Days later the President signed an EO to end the separations, an action which appears to contradict his previous statements and serves to validate the continuing complaints from critics that he frequently lies and misrepresents material facts in order to serve a broader agenda. Earlier this year, both AG Sessions and then Secretary of DHS Kelly also confirmed that the administration had made a calculated decision to criminally prosecute everyone who attempts to enter the country without proper documentation, including mothers and young children from Central America who have traveled to this country on foot, seeking asylum to escape violence and threats of death and rape of young girls from the drug lords who control the region and regularly supply our citizens with the mass quantities of drugs they crave and demand. The President’s assertion that President Obama did the same thing is inaccurate since Obama officials never deliberately separated families and used children as bargaining chips.(then quote Secretary Jeh Johnson so reporting appears “balanced” & accurate)
3
Making up stuff: is it a "lie"? DTrump admitted that in talks w/ Justin Trudeau of Canada, he did not know America's trade balance with our neighbor, so he made up something helpful at the moment -- a big deficit.
This is the consistent pattern with Trump: when it doubt, make up something to suit your ends. That may be the sort of tactic he found useful in real estate deals -- "greatest property deal in the history of Manhattan" -- but it ill serves the president of the United States (to say nothing of the citizens).
But I agree that to say "lie" implies that Trump knows better when states fantasy as fact. "Wishful thinking" is perhaps a closer term. The underlying point is that no one can take what Trump says seriously, on any subject, at any time. There's simply no way of telling whether he's revealing a truth or making it up for the occasion, factual or not. Put another way, Trump never tells the truth; if his statements are factual, that's happenstance. I don't think we have a way of relating to such a character in high office; "democracy" implies a debate over how to deal with "facts" as commonly accepted; journalists work to discover facts and present them for debate.
There is a straightforward solution, however. Rather than call Trump a "liar," better to work to call him a "former" president.
2
Given that the Goebbels meme about a lie told a thousand times makes it truth is all over the internet, I'd argue that if the lies are labelled often, they're less compelling. Granted, The Times doesn't want to come across as the opposition, but that he knows he's lying is verifiable since it's the case that Trump frequently contradicts himself in the space of a few sentences or tweets. I believe it's really important that propaganda be called out as often as possible during these perilous times.
5
Our current president tells lies so often and so consistently that many people (including the NY Times apparently) often say "all politicians exaggerate and obfuscate" as if that makes it okay. Lies are much more than exaggeration and obfuscation. They are out and out falsehoods, intended to deceive the public, and repeated so often that people start believing these falsehoods. Our current president's ongoing rhetoric is so full of malicious, damaging, and degrading lies. I think the press should be more willing to call a lie a lie.
1
The etiquette rules have changed with Trump and the GOP in general. The NYTIMES should be a voice of reason and strongly call out blatant lying. The paper looks weak when you wash it over. This is a time for standing up for the truth which doesn't take sides.
3
This is just plain wrong. You must use the word "lie". The concerns mentioned are simply not valid. This is the NY Times being intimidated, being more worried about what Republicans might say than in clearly articulating the truth. Intent is impossible to prove, ALWAYS. A lie is a lie is a lie. It's bad. It's really bad. Not calling a lie a lie calls to question the New York Times' willingness to simply tell the truth. "False claims" gives false dignity to what is obviously a lie. "False statement" sounds elegant. "Lie" sounds like what it is, something terrible. You correctly say it's a very powerful word. So use it, as it's deserved so richly in so many ways. Not using it perpetuates perpetrators capacity to lie. Using it prevents so much lying. It's really that simple.
2
Funny. I find the Times uses the word "lies" and "lying" in regards to Trump far more frequently than similar publications: the Washington Post, CNN, NPR, LA Times, almost all of whom will use the format "Trump says X. Provides no proof as to veracity." Which says the same thing but sounds way less partisan. Your mea culpas aside, you've made a business decision to be the voice of the opposition versus a neutral third party.
3
Don't like "lie"? Here are a few alternative adjectives to use for the Trump Administration statements::
- False;
- Farcical;
- Groundless;
- Mendacious (kinda elite-sounding);
- Non-factual; and
- Untrue.
But I like "lies", because THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE. Trump has said as much, that he pushes back in advance to discredit his righteous accusers. At this point there can be no more doubts about intent. The intent is clear.
11
Certified Lies.
Democrats are too busy chasing Trump's bait (lies) instead of focusing on the issues. Trump will throw any wild assertion in the water in order to scatter his opponents and then press his agenda.
There now needs to be a simplified approach to Trump's propaganda. Once a lie threshold is met, it is now a Certified Lie. No further argument required.
11
I know Trump is the president, at least in name only. He acts more like a dictator or a king. He lies with impunity. The truth doesn't matter to him.
And while I can see the point made in this article, I think the NY Times and other news media are enabling him in certain ways. He craves center stage and has always sought that position his whole adult life. It feeds his massive and frail ego and he doesn't care if the attention is positive or negative.
Stop feeding his ego. Boycott and daily press "briefings." They are a joke and are one step removed from the pink lady on North Korea TV. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Sarah Sanders walked into the room and it was empty.
Stop broadcasting Trump's every tweet. You are taking a 51 million person Twitter Feed platform and enhancing it to billions of people on the planet.
And stop being politically correct when he lies. He is fond of saying "some people are saying" or "some people believe" as a way to soften or water down the next lie that comes out of his mouth. Call it like it is. Headlines above the fold should read: "Trump Lies Again."
Stop playing fair. Our democracy is fighting for its life.
3
Since there are apparently a majority of Americans who do not read past the headline, perhaps the NYT and other papers should put more thought into what the headline conveys. too often the facts and the truth do not come out until well into the report, and it seems that the attention span of many is not that long.
3
The man is the President of the United States of America. He has access to this country’s vast informational resources (like the Library of Congress), as well as Google! He need never misspeak. Yet he does. Every day. Intentionally. He says whatever he wants with no regard to his words’ veracity. He’s an unrepentant serial liar.
19
Dear Mr. Baquet: I don't believe this is the problem you make it out to be. The phrase you should use in those instances when you can't assert with journalistic integrity that the President definitely knew he wasn't telling the truth is "The President made the following false statement.." But when Trump asserts that President Obama was born in Kenya or that the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower was to discuss adoption, call it what it is.
4
To call something a lie "assumes that someone knew the statement was false".Isn't it the responsibility of POTUS to verify facts instead of spewing whatever falsehoods he conjures up that fit the false narrative he is trying to sell? A lie is a lie is alie.
1
This is a pretty weak explanation. What about this past week when he couldn't do anything about the forced removal of children from their parents? And then he did. How is that not a lie? Sorry but you are enabling him and his mistruths, falsehoods, stories, whatever by not calling the verifiable untruths what they are - lies
2
Dean Baquet needs to grasp one fact when explaining why the Times doesn't say that Donald Trump tells "lies". Surely he knows Trump does not play by the rules: that for him the end justifies any means? By not retaliating strongly the Times is simply letting Trump off the hook! Now is not the time for Political Correctness.
2
Did The Times call President Trump and his spokespeople liars when they all insisted only Congress could stop children from being separated from their parents at US borders? Seems like this is another case where to "write around it" was silly!!!
8
This unattributed shout out is funny, ironic or maybe both. Dean Basquet did not engage in any ethical hand wringing during his game changer September 2016 NPR interview. He made three points clear: (1) He despises Trump (even when he was only nominee Trump who didn’t stand a chance of defeating Hillary), (2) specifically, Trump lied about the birther thing (which seemed to anger Dean more than Obama, who simply produced his attested birth certificate[s] and essentially asked “Anything else?”), and ergo, (3) the Times will start calling Trump a liar spewing lies. And that’s what its done. It’s a little head spinning to frame this reader response piece with the straw argument/rhetorical complaint that the Times isn’t calling Trump a liar or other insults enough. As far as what used to be called, pre-Trump, serious journalism, the central failure of the Times has been to constantly say this or that Trumpian claim is false or a lie. And then not bother explaining in a sentence or two why. The senior leadership at the Times should know better than that and set a more professional example for their younger staffers than they are. You can still call Trump names. But don’t betray your journalist craft and insult your readership by failing to back that up with facts. It’s often not easy. But it’s the right thing for a journalist to do. Good luck.
1
I am a lifelong NYT reader and have the deepest respect for the difficult job all of you have - especially now.
I have felt for a long time that this great paper sometimes goes to unreasonable lengths to give oxygen to those (like President Trump) that outright lie. Have you noticed that the lies are snowballing?
Language matters - now more than ever.
Yes please be precise Dean Baquet, but this president, this administration - and this TIME we are living through is different than anything we have experienced in any of our lifetimes. We are now experiencing a wholesale assault on truth, and an assault on the definition of reality. We are living in a daily fun house mirror, and many of us DEPEND on the NYT to now ACT and react differently.
Lies are lies. Truths are truths. Facts are facts.
If you think Mr. Baquet that you are rising above it all by making the word "lie" into some kind of rarely used holy silver bullet, you are doing readers like me a disservice. Yes we all so appreciate the amazing work that you and your reporters put in to uncover truth. But the kind of over-arching pragmatism that makes the easily understood word "lie" into something sacred is frankly a mistake - and your readers deserve better.
Language matter Mr. Baquet - you know that better than anyone. Please stand strong as the next 6-12 months are going to be a test for your resolve and evolve as this administration takes this country right to the razors edge.
4
It is easy; you don’t have to say the president lied, just call out the falsehood thus: “Trump falsely states that crime is up in Germany”. That headline is followed by an opening sentence like: “Despite crime in Germany being at its lowest in decades, pres trump, blaming immigrants, tweeted that...”
Calls out the falsehood right up front, explains why it is false right away.
3
The mainstream media was so busy being objective about and extensive coverage of Donald Trump that ultimately it was complicit in his election. Now out of fear it is bending over backwards not to be accused of being a 'fake news' outlet. Since that is happening anyway, we might just as well call a spade a spade.
2
We have a sociopath for a president. You are trying to apply Marquis of Queenbury rules to a thug. Civility didn’t do Neville Chamberlain a whole lot of good.
When you refuse to call a lie a lie, you downplay the damage, the consequences of what he doing bit by bit. This is a man who admires dictators & dreams of becoming one himself.
Our constitution, our country are in serious danger and you don’t seem to understand how much. Go back and read Orwell’s 1984.
18
Just because trump is the most ignorant person to hold the presidency does not excuse him for lying. There is probably no person on earth that has the resources to information as he does. As in the law, ignorance is no excuse, lies are still lies and should be called out a such.
2
"It was provable, it was offensive, it was flagrant, and to write around it would have been silly."
OK, got it. That's your policy and I hope you'll stick to it.
Seems to me though, there are a lot of times when that wasn't applied.
1
I don't disagree with your unwillingness to use the word 'lie' but what we all NEED from journalists is for you to vigorously pursue more than TRUE vs FALSE, especially from this Administration.
When a statement is not true it can be many things:
A) It can be a lie -- a false statement made by the speaker, and known by the speaker to be false at the time
B) It can be a mis-statement -- a false statement made by the speaker who is not aware that the choice of words they used has rendered a meaning (a false meaning) that they did not intend.
C) It can be wishful thinking -- a statement made by the speaker that is presently false, but that the speaker HOPES will become true by the actions of future events
D) It can be innocent repetition of a falsehood first spoken by others -- a false statement made by the speaker that they are not aware has proven to be false.
E) It can be disinformation, the malicious repetition of a falsehood first spoken by others that the speaker is aware has proven to be false.
F) It can be self-delusion -- a false statement made by the speaker that they dearly wish to believe will be found to be true, but will not be found so after examination.
G) It can be insanity -- a false statement made by the speaker that the speaker and audience all know is false, but that the speaker nevertheless believes can be made true through willpower
H) It can be hyperbole
I) It can be exaggerattion
J) It can be a joke
K) It can be a dog-whistle
There's others I'm sure
2
Please stop with the false equivalency. The approach cited by Mr. Baquet might be appropriate under normal conditions. But Trump is an inveterate liar, cheat and thief. The newspaper would be very truthful in calling that crook a liar in print every day.
16
(..."inveterate liar, cheat and thief"...). You forgot "coward".
2
Trump when making a false claim is usually lying, or he is seriously stupid. Let him choose what fits best.
2
AMEN. This is something that has bothered me since the primaries. Please call them lies, repeat that he is lying and therefore a liar when he does so. Using euphemisms will not resonate. Using simple, blunt terms such as "lying" or "liar" will stand a chance of getting through. Then, repeat this fact again and again, sticking to the facts and avoiding name-calling and anger ("basket of deplorables"; anything ANTIFA does) which only energizes those who believe his lies.
3
Your bland headlines vs. your honest op-eds are why I canceled my subscription. Here's an idea: run an clearly labeled opinion piece next to your wishy-washy headlines and articles. Use the same fonts, and put them side by side.
The media's failure to give equal coverage during the 2016 campaign is largely at fault for our current situation. It is now your responsibility to learn from, and avoid this in the future.
4
Why not call him out on lies or misstatements about the NYT?
2
I still hate that the media has not found a way to say each time Trump is quoted that it is false or inflamed or obfuscation. With a person who is the leader (at least for the next few years) of the free world who continually misleads the public and his followers, we need a new way to point it out. Keep working on it. This answer is not satisfactory...
20
It seems to me that trying to understand the motivation of a speaker to decide whether something is a "lie" or a "factually incorrect statement" is a waste of time.
If a statement is consistent with what is known, and can be shown to be true, the statement is true. If the statement is inconsistent with what is known, and can be shown to be inconsistent, then it is NOT true, e.g., it is a lie.
Today is Monday. If I tell you today is Wednesday, that is not true, e.g., it is a lie. Do you care WHY I said "Wednesday" or whether I even knew what day of the week it is? Not with regard to the veracity of the statement.
So at the very least, if somebody says something that is not true, you should report it as "false", and possibly as "a lie." There is no point in beating around the bush. There is no basis for false equivalences.
If the statement is not demonstrably true or false, maybe you state that "Person X opined that Charlie is better looking than Sam." (Example: "Trump opined that immigrants should not be afforded due process." You can then explain how and when due process attaches.)
Getting down to cases, Trump has made a significantly larger number of statements that are PROVABLY false (or lies) than statements that are demonstrably true. I have the tweets to prove that assertion.
You should just call the statements what they are, true, false (or a lie), or an opinion.
18
Your summary of Mr. Trumps weekly lies or false claims is always interesting. Since you are parsing the difference between lies and false claims, it would be helpful if you also published,with the list, the standards you are using to determine when a statement is a lie and when it is a false claim. Apparently you believe ignorance, even deliberate, (sometimes called "conscious avoidance") is a way of avoiding labeling a statement as a lie. In the President's case where he could easily learn the facts if he chose to, I think there is no justification for not calling a false statement a lie.
19
Ok, but by your own definition, when he went after Democrats and claimed they were responsible for separating parents and children at the border, he KNEW that was false and should therefore that should have been called a lie. Similarly, when he claimed the law compelled him to do that-- lie.
You're trying to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who doesn't deserve it. Maybe you're incredulous that one man can lie that compulsively and that publicly for months and months, and fear being criticized for calling him out every time he lies. You need to get over it. He has indeed upended the rules of normal, rational, and truthful discourse and you need to take off the kid gloves.
68
You could just say "So and so has made a false statement". To me, lying requires intent. and since you aren't mind readers, it is pretty hard to call someone a liar for a one-off statement. When the falsity of the statement has been pointed out and the person repeats it, then LIAR is appropriate.
17
Yes, your point is well taken. However, asking the Liar-in-chief what was the basis upon which he says these statements is appropriate. A reporter refuting Mr. Trump at the time that he utters these falsehoods would serve truth and embarrass Mr. Trump. He needs to be embarrassed.
23
Soft pedaling the issue is a problem. A lie is a lie. There is no other way around it. Do you think he cares? His tweets prove he is uncaring so why not state the truth instead of giving him a pass. Don't be afraid to hear his feelings or make him mad. He doesn't care and will attack you whether you say he falsely claiming something or lying.
30
Suppose you quote a named, credible source who is willing to go on record using the word “lie,” and follow the quote with the evidence that Trump spoke falsely. Then a lie is called a lie, but it’s not the NYT saying so.
10
Yep, I understand the need to limit the use of the lie word. However, from time to time, when it is deemed appropriate, it would be nice to see it when it applies.
23
Trump exists only because he keeps the media reporting on him every hour of every day and night.
Every time you report on him, positive or negative, he wins as he knows you keep reporting on him and keep him as the center of the world's attention.
He cannot exist in a vacuum. Stop reporting on him. Encourage other media to do the same.
80
... or at least, don't mention his name in so many headlines or articles. "the white house" might do.
3
Despite questions about its provenance, the notion that "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself" is compelling, and one that this fact-challenged president and his administration seem to have embraced as a matter of policy.
61
Yes, when a person utters one obvious falsehood, to call it a lie is tricky because of the assumption s/he knows it is false.
However, when the falsehoods, instead of being acknowledged, actually multiply, it is not only permissible to speak of lying: not to do so ends up being itself a falsehood.
Regardless of the impact on "the base" ("supporters digging in etc.), at this point of the Trump presidency, the only accurate and objective way to qualify Trump's numerous false statements is to call them lies, pure and simple.
69
I believe the Times and all the mainstream media should simply stop covering any Trump statement that is both false and not an official policy statement of the US government. It is well established that repeating false statements, even when stating they are false, reinforces the falsehood in many listeners' minds. Historically, it was felt that a US president's statements should always be covered, but Trump has forfeited that right through repeated and compulsive falsehoods. He just plays the press to his own advantage and the press should stop falling for this.
96
Trump's greatest lies are about the Russia investigation. His Fog Machine churns out a steady stream of lies and alternate narratives whenever events bring the the investigation back into prime time. So it is easy to lose track of the players, story and how it is all connected to Trump's continuous promotion of friendlier relations with Russia. Next on the agenda is a possible meeting between Trump and Putin in mid-July.
Fortunately, Lisa Desjardins and the other hard working folks at the PBS News Hour have produced a handy timeline which you can and should download.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/russia-timeline/
Spend 15 minutes or an hour with this Excel Spreadsheet with links to years of news articles from the NYT and elsewhere. Every time Trump talks about Russia, you will have new insights into his gas lighting techniques.
41
Trump's gas lighting "wiretapp" lies are especially clever, claiming first that his Trump Tower was wiretapped by the Obama Administration and second that FISA surveillance warrants were obtained based on the partisan Steele Dossier.
The truth is that the intelligence services of six different European countries were picking up suspicious contacts between Russian intelligence agents and Trump campaign officials and associates, starting back in 2015.
The US was actually "asleep at the switch" until alerted by these countries about the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence. But intelligence sharing, at least prior to Trump, was a sensitive matter so the public knew little or nothing about this at the time and some were persuaded by the story put out by the GOP leadership of the House Intelligence Committee about improper surveillance.
The picture is so much clearer in retrospect, as it will be a year or two from now, when the books, movies, documentaries and mini-series explode.
36
Call them "lies". Call them "false statements". Do so immediately and clearly.
Trump is president. The White House, when not in the grips of fact-blind ideologues, has the ability and resources to call on the most knowledgeable experts, and the most informed sources of information worldwide. Trump is willfully ignorant, brags about it, and when he says something that is untrue, he must be called out on it immediately and clearly. Trump ignores his intelligence agencies when they tell him things he doesn't want to believe... he resists facts that do not fit his predefined, prejudiced worldview. Call these "false statements" as soon as he says them. When he says something provably, factually wrong, call it a "lie". He could have looked it up, he could have asked an expert, he could have believed what his expert agencies told him - he didn't. That's a choice, that's choosing to state false things knowingly and willingly. That's Lying.
73
I appreciate the judicious use of the "l" word. As with some curse words, it can lose its meaning.
Whether a lie is a big lie or a little white lie is harder to judge. Also when is spin just spin and when is it a lie? Is a lie about something trivial from a serial liar worth worrying about?
I believe the most dangerous lies, the lies that must be called lies, are those where the liar knew or really should have known the truth. When such a lie is repeated after it has been shown, with credible evidence, to be patently false, it must be called a lie.
When a dangerious lie is repeated often, over a long period of time, after the liar has had the truth explained, when the lie persuades devoted cult members it is true, lie is not strong enough. When the word lie is used then, the reasons for using the word lie must be explained and repeated whenever the the lie is repeated.
If the grey lady weren't so prim, in the last case, I'd love to see the word in boldface red.
15
Trump therefore is handcuffing you and other press by daring you to stoop to the level of street fighting which a sense of decorum and fairness on your part that causes you to refrain from falling for. However this allows him to say basically anything that comes to his mind without any inhibition because he knows the worse he comes out with, the more restraint is required for you to hold a higher ground. In his case, he lies so often that were you to call him out, the word 'lie' would be the most used word in your vocabulary. In other words, he is fighting a much different battle on a much different level than you are. You should at least own up to that.
65
Matthew Yglesias has a good piece in Vox about exactly this frustration. He comes to the reasonable conclusion that saying "lied" or "falsely claimed" ends up not mattering all that much if people are clear eyed about Trump's character, which is to say if people know that he's an aggressive liar. Another point was that we should treat all of Trump's statements, regrettably reportable though they are, without any semblance of benefit of the doubt. We know he lies, we know he lies often, the burden of proof of any of his claims should rest with him.
At the end of the day, people should read a Times headline with "Trump says ________" and begin with the assumption that it is false.
22
No - there should never be a Times headline with "Trump says" in it. That skews the news toward whatever lie he's spewing at the moment. The media needs to learn to write what George Lakoff calls a truth sandwich - starting and ending with the factual, and putting Trump's commentary in the middle where it's contextualized.
The headline should be (for example) "Migrants commit a lower rate of crime than natively born Americans". Then in the middle the media might say "Despite these facts, Trump continues to spread the idea that crime is booming because of migrants" Contextualized like that, it doesn't matter if you use direct language ("lie") or waffle language ("unsupported")
But at this point, the continuous failure of the NYT to act as a responsible purveyor of facts keeps me from believing they'll make any changes. Can't be perceived as partisan now, can we, even if reporting facts is framed by Trump and his myrmidons as bias. Maybe we could frame everything as opinion and just give up on messy old facts!
2
We accept that all politicians sometimes highlight what they want to have heard (I guess we all do that), and sometimes for security reasons cannot share the whole truth. But this administration's lying, and failing to be at all transparent (right now in regards to where are the babies and the girls) is a whole new level. I worry that Trump followers actually believe him when he says that immigrants are not owed due process. They probably assume he understands our Constitution and our treaty obligations. If we do not honor our treaty obligations, why should any nation honor their treaty obligations to the U. S. at any point in the future?
46
I agree with the sentiment explained by the Times here. Simply, President Trump, not unlike other politicians, sometimes speaks without clarifying details or truly understanding the breadth of the information he is sharing. Now, as the Times explained, that obviously was not the case in terms of Trump's comments regarding former-President Obama and his birthplace, and they rightfully called it a lie.
President Trump may be afforded the normal leash for politicians in terms of blatantly lying, but far more often he engages in a different type of misinformation - spinning stories. This type of speech is done with intent, and while it often contains 'untruths,' the true harm it does is the division it causes within voters. This is where the onus falls upon the listener to discern what is factual and what needs further research; however, this is a skill that is seldom used to the extent it needs to be.
With this in mind, I feel the Times, and a select few other news outlets, clearly describes situations regarding Trump's statements, leaving the reader with a rather holistic picture. Unfortunately, that's not the case universally, and news outlets can only do so much to ensure that readers are receiving all of the information they need. As a result, the real test for the country is not outliving Trump's lies and untruths, it is knowing a statement is false, even if it reaffirms a belief tightly held.
15
There has never been a president who lies this much. W lied frequently, but nothing like the current pResident.
3
I have some sympathy for the Times on this as it gets into the territory of precisely differentiating among outright lying, slanting the truth expediently, cherry picking facts, deluding oneself or simply being mistaken. Trump does all of these things, often in combination or dizzying succession. One of the problems with his false statements is that the explanation for HOW they are false is often more complicated than most people have patience for. They end up shrugging and saying, "Well, he's getting at a real problem isn't he?" (as if the lie somehow represents a larger truth) or "Well he really believes it," (so it's not a morally corrupt as a "real" lie).
We are in a bad place when the president can lie, strategically distort, launch malicious slurs and air delusions all day, every day, and our guardians of democracy have at their disposal only polite, neutral descriptors like, "inaccurate," "counterfactual" or, at worst, "false."
50
The New York Times is a newspaper for people who DO have the patience for a complicated explanation.
The excuse that "Well, he really believes it" is no excuse for a lie on factual matters that is readily verifiable. Trump tells plenty of those.
Does the Times give kid glove treatment even to Trump because they want to preserve their access, or keep getting invited to parties given by conservatives?
Most comments on this are of course going to be people who disagree with the Times - so just wanted to say I agree with the explanation completely. NYT should stick to the facts, not make assumptions about someone's knowledge and intent that can't possibly be proven and therefore come off (rightly so) as partisan.
In most of the cases where I've seen some people complaining, it would have felt wrong to use the word "lie", and I would have viewed a headline like that as a liberal-biased article (I am a liberal, but prefer objective reporting). I really hope NYT doesn't sacrifice their journalistic integrity to appease some readers as I think it would seriously erode their trust and reputation.
11