One thing I struggle with is distinguishing between consciously lying and making a false claim. I get pushback from my own readers sometimes when I debunk a false claim and people say why didn't you just say they lied?
Some of the politicians I cover are profoundly ignorant and/or incurious about the issues. I can't be sure they are "lying" as opposed to lazily repeating a false claim they heard somewhere and may actually believe. (This often happens in the Iowa legislature, when individual lawmakers haven't read the bill and are just parroting the talking points they got from leadership or the floor manager of the bill.)
For those situations, if I don't have evidence they know it's untrue, I usually write that they said something false without calling them a liar. I don't want to pretend to be a mind-reader.
I'd be interested in your take on how journalists should handle this kind of situation—when a politician says something demonstrably false but it may not be clear they know it's false.
I had to give up reading this. I'm not dumb. There's just too much jargon. I don't know the intended audience, but it isn't the average intelligent person. Journalists, to be journalists, need to call out the lies and amplify the truth. They need to ask the hard questions. If they are banned because of it, they weren't getting real answers anyway.
I understand your frustration. I’ve been following Jay Rosen for years, and he tends to over analyze things… instead of following the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) rule.
Valid points but it also seems as we are thinking to hard. That we are making Trump and his cohort sound more complex or sophisticated than they are in reality. And it is not Trump who ‘nullifies reality’ but a majority of media who continue to act as intimidated transcribers for his lies and what are closing in as war crimes. Headlines that identify 'Trump Lies Again...' when the lie is painfully obvious and easily identified rather than referencing 'falsehoods' and 'without evidence' is very important...but not happening
There are so damn many but, in the immediate, this ranges from Johnson's claim of 90% support for Trump and Trump's own lies about winning an overwhelming 'mandate' in the last election to his now militarization of DC based on obvious lies about and false comparisons of national and international crime rates. That violent crime is dramatically reduced in DC is the reality - not Trump's Project 2025 driven lies
Maybe somebody could suggest to Trump that instead of spending massive amounts of taxpayer money pretending to be an alpha male and, in effect, attempt a form of 'martial law' in DC, that same (or, even, less) money could be used for community programs, vocational training, strengthening public schools, increasing numbers of Metro Police to include use of mental health specialists as part of police patrols and helping house and support the homeless. The only way I'd support 'clearing out' the homeless from DC would be if they were to be allowed to pitch tents on Mar a Lago or Bedminster property.
The media must confront the criminal felon and adjudicated sex offender and his slobbering sycophants to include Patel, Bondi, and Hegseth, Directly challenge the ongoing use of stochastic terrorism which has led to documented injury and death. Remind Trump that he cannot provide 'approval' in advance for illegal law enforcement brutality and violence in that 'I was following orders' already failed post WW2 at Nuremberg
This new attack on DC is also purely racist as well as more distraction. The media must challenge Trump, head on and not be intimidated when Trump tells a reporter their question was 'nasty;' or some such other elementary school playground bullshit.
Trump should then NOT be allowed to move on but the next selected reporter should repeat the question of the last. Call out his incoherent babbling by asking him to explain what the hell he just said...that he won't have a clue will then become apparent. Trump has also come up with a remarkable number of distracters as soon as Epstein became prioritized. And, yes, Trump is on Epstein's lists.
Trump has a decades long history as a sex offender, predator and pedophile. It's all very well documented to include photos of Trump nuzzling a post pubescent Ivanka in the backseat of his limo, in a bed...and elsewhere. Trump also had introduced Ivanka into his pedophile modeling network when she was no older than 10 years old.
Use it...stop being led into Trump's political hell. Remember the power and History of American journalism from Thomas Paine to Woodward and Bernstein.
Thank you for this. And I agree! Instead of doing a better job of reporting on what Trump does every day, journalists should REPORT ON WHO TRUMP IS … and has been for decades! He is a known pedophile as well as a criminal conman. That’s the story… which reporters should tell the public every damn day!
Well lie has a specific meaning. Look it up. It's actually really hard to pin the term on someone. Even Trump, unless you're so partisan you don't care about definitions.
No, 'it's actually not really hard to pin the term on someone' and it is only partisans who might try this argument. You wanted definition? Ok, then...'a lie is a statement intended to deceive or mislead (and) involves knowingly communicating something that is not true.'
For this, Trump and his sycophants provides examples each and every day (please see my longer comment on this string). Maybe you are so partisan as to not care about Trump's increasingly dangerous lies, stochastic terrorism, revisionist history and streams of distraction/disinformation.
Sorry, dude, but it's mainly the pro Trump hyper partisans who defend the indefensible and don't know the difference between opinions and lies. Crime rates are not 'opinions.' Claiming 90% support for Trump is a lie, not an 'opinion.' Trump claims he won the last election in a landslide is a lie, not an opinion. There are so many more examples. Come back when you are capable of an informed discussion.
Give me a quote by any politician. It will almost certainly be an opinion. And again, I would encourage all to look up the definition of lie. In order to be a lie, it can't be a mistake. Or an opinion. Or lack intent (that's the toughest one, unless you're a mind-reader). Nope, it's just very, very hard to peg a public statement as a lie. Unless you're a partisan. Then it's very, very easy.
Thanks for publishing this Q&A. Jay Rosen's work (especially on "The View from Nowhere") has influenced my own approach to political reporting.
I am not afraid to call out lies when I see them and am confident the politician is lying:
https://laurabelin.substack.com/p/brenna-bird-hid-the-ball-on-major
One thing I struggle with is distinguishing between consciously lying and making a false claim. I get pushback from my own readers sometimes when I debunk a false claim and people say why didn't you just say they lied?
Some of the politicians I cover are profoundly ignorant and/or incurious about the issues. I can't be sure they are "lying" as opposed to lazily repeating a false claim they heard somewhere and may actually believe. (This often happens in the Iowa legislature, when individual lawmakers haven't read the bill and are just parroting the talking points they got from leadership or the floor manager of the bill.)
For those situations, if I don't have evidence they know it's untrue, I usually write that they said something false without calling them a liar. I don't want to pretend to be a mind-reader.
I'd be interested in your take on how journalists should handle this kind of situation—when a politician says something demonstrably false but it may not be clear they know it's false.
I had to give up reading this. I'm not dumb. There's just too much jargon. I don't know the intended audience, but it isn't the average intelligent person. Journalists, to be journalists, need to call out the lies and amplify the truth. They need to ask the hard questions. If they are banned because of it, they weren't getting real answers anyway.
I understand your frustration. I’ve been following Jay Rosen for years, and he tends to over analyze things… instead of following the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) rule.
Valid points but it also seems as we are thinking to hard. That we are making Trump and his cohort sound more complex or sophisticated than they are in reality. And it is not Trump who ‘nullifies reality’ but a majority of media who continue to act as intimidated transcribers for his lies and what are closing in as war crimes. Headlines that identify 'Trump Lies Again...' when the lie is painfully obvious and easily identified rather than referencing 'falsehoods' and 'without evidence' is very important...but not happening
There are so damn many but, in the immediate, this ranges from Johnson's claim of 90% support for Trump and Trump's own lies about winning an overwhelming 'mandate' in the last election to his now militarization of DC based on obvious lies about and false comparisons of national and international crime rates. That violent crime is dramatically reduced in DC is the reality - not Trump's Project 2025 driven lies
Maybe somebody could suggest to Trump that instead of spending massive amounts of taxpayer money pretending to be an alpha male and, in effect, attempt a form of 'martial law' in DC, that same (or, even, less) money could be used for community programs, vocational training, strengthening public schools, increasing numbers of Metro Police to include use of mental health specialists as part of police patrols and helping house and support the homeless. The only way I'd support 'clearing out' the homeless from DC would be if they were to be allowed to pitch tents on Mar a Lago or Bedminster property.
The media must confront the criminal felon and adjudicated sex offender and his slobbering sycophants to include Patel, Bondi, and Hegseth, Directly challenge the ongoing use of stochastic terrorism which has led to documented injury and death. Remind Trump that he cannot provide 'approval' in advance for illegal law enforcement brutality and violence in that 'I was following orders' already failed post WW2 at Nuremberg
This new attack on DC is also purely racist as well as more distraction. The media must challenge Trump, head on and not be intimidated when Trump tells a reporter their question was 'nasty;' or some such other elementary school playground bullshit.
Trump should then NOT be allowed to move on but the next selected reporter should repeat the question of the last. Call out his incoherent babbling by asking him to explain what the hell he just said...that he won't have a clue will then become apparent. Trump has also come up with a remarkable number of distracters as soon as Epstein became prioritized. And, yes, Trump is on Epstein's lists.
Trump has a decades long history as a sex offender, predator and pedophile. It's all very well documented to include photos of Trump nuzzling a post pubescent Ivanka in the backseat of his limo, in a bed...and elsewhere. Trump also had introduced Ivanka into his pedophile modeling network when she was no older than 10 years old.
Use it...stop being led into Trump's political hell. Remember the power and History of American journalism from Thomas Paine to Woodward and Bernstein.
Thank you for this. And I agree! Instead of doing a better job of reporting on what Trump does every day, journalists should REPORT ON WHO TRUMP IS … and has been for decades! He is a known pedophile as well as a criminal conman. That’s the story… which reporters should tell the public every damn day!
Well lie has a specific meaning. Look it up. It's actually really hard to pin the term on someone. Even Trump, unless you're so partisan you don't care about definitions.
No, 'it's actually not really hard to pin the term on someone' and it is only partisans who might try this argument. You wanted definition? Ok, then...'a lie is a statement intended to deceive or mislead (and) involves knowingly communicating something that is not true.'
For this, Trump and his sycophants provides examples each and every day (please see my longer comment on this string). Maybe you are so partisan as to not care about Trump's increasingly dangerous lies, stochastic terrorism, revisionist history and streams of distraction/disinformation.
All these "lies" are opinions. Learn the difference.
Sorry, dude, but it's mainly the pro Trump hyper partisans who defend the indefensible and don't know the difference between opinions and lies. Crime rates are not 'opinions.' Claiming 90% support for Trump is a lie, not an 'opinion.' Trump claims he won the last election in a landslide is a lie, not an opinion. There are so many more examples. Come back when you are capable of an informed discussion.
Give me a quote by any politician. It will almost certainly be an opinion. And again, I would encourage all to look up the definition of lie. In order to be a lie, it can't be a mistake. Or an opinion. Or lack intent (that's the toughest one, unless you're a mind-reader). Nope, it's just very, very hard to peg a public statement as a lie. Unless you're a partisan. Then it's very, very easy.