5 reasons journalists accept being lied to

And why they think they’re blameless when they spread the lies

Journalists don’t punish liars enough.

Occasionally they push back on live TV, creating a few awkward moments, but by and large, they let liars state their lies and move on. Sometimes the journalists correct the lie later after their audience has absorbed the disinformation. It’s like pouring water on the ashes long after the fire is out.

Confrontation is hard for people – even for journalists. If they make their guests look bad, the guests might never come back on the show. Their press aides might stop providing anonymous quotes or tidbits of information that make the journalists look like they have the inside scoop. 

For this reason and others, some journalists accept being lied to, and consider it a part of their job. They don’t get offended – or at least not offended enough to fight back. They become part of a cynical system. And they come up with all kinds of rationalizations for their failure to vigorously defend the truth.

Here are five of those rationalizations. These are not direct quotes by anyone – they’re just my attempt to capture the attitudes that are active in political journalism today. 

1. We didn’t say he was telling the truth – we just reported what he said, and our report was true. He said it.

This type of dodging of responsibility was demonstrated last week when the media repeated Donald Trump’s obvious deceptions about abortion. 

Whenever news outlets report what politicians say without examining whether the comments are true or how they match the politicians’ past actions, they’re failing to do their job. That kind of fact-checking and context is the value-added that journalists bring. If they’re not going to do that, they might as well just put up a message board and let politicians post on it.

2. Yes, Trump lies a lot, but we can’t assume he’s lying this time. If we show too much skepticism, we’ll look biased.

Journalists wouldn’t put it this way – at least not publicly – but they’re thinking this way. 

To update an old expression … Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 30,000 times in four years as president, shame on me.

Team Trump should never get the benefit of the doubt. They haven’t earned it.

Instead of reporting what "Trump says,” the media should report what "Trump, who has often lied about this issue, says.” 

That would put Trump’s comments in a truthful context. But it would also violate the posture of objectivity that most mainstream outlets demand of their reporters.

Many newsrooms are afraid of too much truth-telling because when the media reports negative information about one side in a two-party system – however valid – it makes some people think the truth-tellers are biased. 

3. We have to give them their say.

No, you don’t. Not unless they’re defending themselves on specific allegations or they’re saying something that will help the public understand the issue better. 

Of course, it’s an ethical journalistic practice to ask people to comment if a news report is about them. But that doesn’t mean you have to publish whatever they say.

The Washington Post wrote a story last November about Trump’s plans to use the Justice Department to punish his enemies if he’s elected. Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung would not answer specific questions about the plan but told the Post: “President Trump has always stood for law and order, and protecting the Constitution.” 

The Post should not have printed that. By this time, Trump had already talked about pardoning the thugs who beat up cops and stormed the Capitol. He was facing 91 criminal counts (later reduced to 88). He had called for the “termination” of the Constitution. Cheung’s comment was an obvious lie.

The Post probably thought printing that was “fairness.” But fair to whom? Certainly not the readers.

4. All politicians lie.

The cynicism of political reporters is a problem. Yes, it’s difficult not to become jaded when you see all the ethical shortcuts in politics today. But our government has a great capacity to bring either justice or oppression to people. The news media must demand high standards for public servants and call out those who don’t meet those standards.

It’s probably true that almost all politicians make misleading statements at one time or another. But they don't do it in equal numbers. The level of dishonesty being shown by today’s Republican Party is unprecedented in American history. It is not normal.

5. It’s not technically a lie if they think it’s true. 

This argument was used by media execs to explain why they didn’t call Trump’s statements “lies” when he was running in 2016. They argued that they couldn’t read his mind and didn't know whether he was intentionally spreading falsehoods. He might have simply been mistaken. Of course, he almost never changed his rhetoric when the fact-checkers took his lies apart. He just kept repeating them.

With the exception of a few genuinely stupid politicians like Tommy Tuberville, MAGA politicians are not deluded. They know exactly what they’re doing, which is trying to delude the public. Many are highly educated people. They know what the truth is. They just think it’s an obstacle to their ambitions. 

Media types won’t say this publicly, but I’m sure some of them feel overwhelmed by the torrent of lies from the right. They might fact-check one lie, but three others slip through. This is why, if they feel compelled to put liars on television, they should never do it live. They should record the interviews and present them with the fact-checks inserted right after the lies.

The most important reform, though, would be for journalists to get beyond fact-checking and move on to fact-crusading. That’s what CNN was doing last week with its excellent reporting on how Republicans are trying to slip away from their past positions on abortion. 

Fact-crusading happens when journalists consider themselves defenders of the truth and become so offended by disinformation that they confront and punish those who spread it.

Fact-crusading happens when journalists value their duty to democracy more than their access to democracy’s enemies.