Lies and journalism

The Washington Post's Greg Sargent is wrong with his editorial titled, "Yes, Donald Trump ‘lies.’ A lot. And news organizations should say so."

One thing Sargent fails to do is define his terms properly. A news organization is made up of two distinct parts: reporting and analysis.  

News reporting, which is the basis of all news organizations and the root of all journalism, does not usually have the luxury of calling an untruth a "lie". As Sargent does correctly state in the first line:

When Donald Trump lies, is he telling a lie? Not if we cannot prove an intent to mislead, apparently.  

That is the very definition of a lie: an intent to mislead.

If you would like a good example of how to properly report this as a news item, check out this New York Times article, "Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery":

Richard M. Nixon always denied it: to David Frost, to historians and to Lyndon B. Johnson, who had the strongest suspicions and the most cause for outrage at his successor’s rumored treachery. To them all, Nixon insisted that he had not sabotaged Johnson’s 1968 peace initiative to bring the war in Vietnam to an early conclusion. “My God. I would never do anything to encourage” South Vietnam “not to come to the table,” Nixon told Johnson, in a conversation captured on the White House taping system.

Now we know Nixon lied. A newfound cache of notes left by H. R. Haldeman, his closest aide, shows that Nixon directed his campaign’s efforts to scuttle the peace talks, which he feared could give his opponent, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, an edge in the 1968 election. On Oct. 22, 1968, he ordered Haldeman to “monkey wrench” the initiative.

Ironically, the New York Times labels this as an opinion piece, but it could actually work as a news piece. It has the untruth (Nixon's comment to Johnson), the intent (win the election), and the connection between both (Haldeman's notes). Lie exposed. Perfect news reporting.

But the standards for news analysis are slightly lower. Where news reporting should be primarily about reporting the facts, with any speculation strictly labeled as such, news analysis is like the old joke about a-holes: Everyone has one.

If Sargent is suggesting news analysts should call out Trump's lies, I agree completely. Speculation and opinion are within the purview of the news analyst/editorialist/"talking head". They should call out the lies when they see or hear them.

But editors who allow their news reporters to use the word "lie" better have some strong evidence to support it, or else they are subject to the nastiest accusation of which any journalist can be accused: bias.

Having said all that, don't we all know by now that if Trump's lips are moving, he is probably lying? Pointing out his lies is comparable to pointing out a sunrise in the morning. It happens every day. It isn't news, or even interesting. (Some might say a sunrise is pretty, which is where this analogy parts ways.)

With Trump, his lies are a distraction, sort of like a magician who makes a display of one hand while his other hand is performing the trick. If you spend too much time on his lies, you will miss his actions, which are far more important. Jesus Christ nailed this truth two thousand years ago:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."--Matthew 7:15-20

My point is not to say Trump's lies are acceptable. Only that if you concentrate on them, you will completely miss any real damage he might cause.