History will judge your willingness to tell the truth and hold the press accountable. I've said it before, but it bears repeating; press who continue to refuse to call Trump a liar directly are as complicit as Republican congresspeople.
I have been saying for years that the media refuses to call out Republicans for their bald-faced lies. For decades they have been lying about tax cuts for the rich paying for themselves but the media refused to call out that lie until very recently. Paul Krugman sees that as a major turning point to blatant dishonesty for the Republican Party. He isn’t afraid to call them out for lying but he has clearly ruffled mainstream feathers for being too forthright. For example review of his new book “Arguing with Zombies” agrees with Krugman’s take on Republicans climate change denial:
“Given that this consensus has been clear for more than a decade, it is fair to conclude that Republican leaders are consciously making false statements—in other words, that they are liars. Guessing at their motives seems risky but not totally unreasonable. Conceivably, they might be lying because they don’t want to irk voters with the news that hamburgers and pickup trucks are cooking the planet. But Krugman is basically right that “almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take.” To state the matter plainly, conservatives lie about this issue because they are paid to lie.
What is the author’s response to this truth-telling? He attacks Krugman for being so forthright about calling Republicans out, portraying him as a hyperventilating madman.
Journalists know that if they get too bold this will be the response from the DC insiders. They will get the vapors if someone dares to violate the rules of their village by being too honest and that journalist will lose credibility.
Not only are conservatives "paid to lie" they can do it with impunity because there are NO credibility consequences given the press' unwillingness to hold them accountable. So, why tell the truth when the alternative is so painless?
What strikes me is the tortured way adjectives and an adverb are used to offset the noun or verb "claim." Weak writing on full display and an easy path to being disregarded as readers can easily skip over the describers and just see "claim." It makes a big difference to the brain's interpretation of the sentence's meaning.
As an example:
The president incorrectly claimed he...
Trump lied because Obama (or Bush) actually did...
The first invites misunderstanding as it is fuzzy.
The second example is clear, direct, and provides no avenue for misunderstanding.
The first uses the title of president as the subject, which also provides a bit of cover with implied respect for the office. This implied respect also weakens the sentence; in contrast, by naming the offender as the subject of the sentence, the directness is powerful and attention-grabbing.
The wimpy usage of the English language is a crime against good writing in addition to being an injustice to readers.
I'm so glad that I pointed this out to my sister in law back in the summer of '15. I told her that lying is one of the 10 commandments, '...bear false witness against thy neighbor'. That it's right there along with murder and adultery, lying is bad. She's a devout christian and it rang a few bells in her head. Every time I heard another one of his lies, I remembered her and wondered if it ever stuck.
I remember like it was yesterday when Dean Baquet went on Fresh Air in early 2017 and furrowed his brow and stroked his chin about how tricky it is to use the word "lie" in regard to Trump.
so embarrassing right? as i've pointed out elsewhere, there are some lies Trump has told 60, 70, 80 times. but the NYT can't figure out if he's just "misinformed"???
To me the “lie by any other name” posture taken by the MSM is simply to defend the office of president rather than Trump, and to go all out “he lies...”another lie“, “The liar” would derogate and degrade the office and admit that this country in fact has installed a willful and pathological liar as president. The media has taken upon itself to try to salvage a small measure of dignity for the presidency as an institution, perhaps even as a “patriotic” gesture, by bending over backwards and tying itself in knots in avoiding to call out Trump as a LIAR, and settling for less dramatic synonyms.
i think there are many reasons the press refuses to use "liar" and you've touched on a few....another: if he's a pathological liar, what would that say about the 2016 campaign coverage when the press covered him merely as a TV reality star?
Certainly Trump is a big fat lying liar literally and figuratively; however mainly he is a Bullshit Artist extraordinaire -- a con man so blatant even Marco Rubio recognized it once upon a time. Trump has no regard for the truth, casting everything in its most favorable light to himself. About the only media personality to flat out call Trump a Bullshit Artist is Fareed Zakaria. Just saying "Bullshit" back at Trump to me seems more effective than fact checking. As you've noted Eric, fact checking just normalizes the narrative and has no impact on Trumpers.
I've called "Bullshit" myself to Trump lovers, who sort-of concede the point with Fox-speak "he talks rough because he's a New Yorker and in construction, they talk like that" - mostly, his die-hard supporters don't care and willingly wallow in Trump's Bullshit with nary a care.
key point that often gets lost re: Trump lying: he's textbook pathological liar, which means there's no 'strategy' per se. he doesn't calculate when would be a good time/bad time to lie. he lies all the time. the press just can't or won't wrap its head around that
I remember back when he was first elected, one of the papers, I think it was the Times said something like, 'well, a lie is something that's intentional and since we can't know for sure whether he's purposefully misleading, falsifying, bullshitting, etc'ing - then we can't claim it's a lie'. Which is where the 'alternate facts' comes in. Someone 'told' him 'something', therefore he believes it's true.
What's at stake with this president is that the commander-in-chief is a threat to the relationship between civilian control and military strategy. When we tie that to Trump's personal use of a corrupt Justice Department, a castrated State Department, and a discredited Intelligence apparatus along with a treasury department debased by its leaders, Mr Boehlert is understating the case for the media's complicity. They are not watching the chipping away of democracy as much as reporting on its demolition.
I continue to ask why but get no answer. I'm sorry to say it, but the news media see themselves as above being questioned, especially by peons like me. If I dared to walk up to a reporter and ask them a question, they would look at me as if I was an insect while muttering something under their breath.
Please continue holding their feet to the fire because they won't answer my phone calls.
thanks Nancy. and wow it’s so distressing to see how badly local journalism has fallen in recent years. I saw a headline over the weekend where a mid-size Ohio newspaper was down to a single reporter covering Metro section
History will judge your willingness to tell the truth and hold the press accountable. I've said it before, but it bears repeating; press who continue to refuse to call Trump a liar directly are as complicit as Republican congresspeople.
I completely agree. in this specific case, press is clearly part of the problem
I have been saying for years that the media refuses to call out Republicans for their bald-faced lies. For decades they have been lying about tax cuts for the rich paying for themselves but the media refused to call out that lie until very recently. Paul Krugman sees that as a major turning point to blatant dishonesty for the Republican Party. He isn’t afraid to call them out for lying but he has clearly ruffled mainstream feathers for being too forthright. For example review of his new book “Arguing with Zombies” agrees with Krugman’s take on Republicans climate change denial:
“Given that this consensus has been clear for more than a decade, it is fair to conclude that Republican leaders are consciously making false statements—in other words, that they are liars. Guessing at their motives seems risky but not totally unreasonable. Conceivably, they might be lying because they don’t want to irk voters with the news that hamburgers and pickup trucks are cooking the planet. But Krugman is basically right that “almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take.” To state the matter plainly, conservatives lie about this issue because they are paid to lie.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/review-paul-krugman-arguing-with-zombies/603052/
What is the author’s response to this truth-telling? He attacks Krugman for being so forthright about calling Republicans out, portraying him as a hyperventilating madman.
Journalists know that if they get too bold this will be the response from the DC insiders. They will get the vapors if someone dares to violate the rules of their village by being too honest and that journalist will lose credibility.
calling GOP radical liars just is not considered ok by DC press
Not only are conservatives "paid to lie" they can do it with impunity because there are NO credibility consequences given the press' unwillingness to hold them accountable. So, why tell the truth when the alternative is so painless?
What strikes me is the tortured way adjectives and an adverb are used to offset the noun or verb "claim." Weak writing on full display and an easy path to being disregarded as readers can easily skip over the describers and just see "claim." It makes a big difference to the brain's interpretation of the sentence's meaning.
As an example:
The president incorrectly claimed he...
Trump lied because Obama (or Bush) actually did...
The first invites misunderstanding as it is fuzzy.
The second example is clear, direct, and provides no avenue for misunderstanding.
The first uses the title of president as the subject, which also provides a bit of cover with implied respect for the office. This implied respect also weakens the sentence; in contrast, by naming the offender as the subject of the sentence, the directness is powerful and attention-grabbing.
The wimpy usage of the English language is a crime against good writing in addition to being an injustice to readers.
the semantics gymnastics being played by media are beyond embarrassing
I'm so glad I found your publication here. This headline captures how I've felt, especially in the Trump era. Way too accommodating.
thanks. I’m glad you found it, too.
I'm so glad that I pointed this out to my sister in law back in the summer of '15. I told her that lying is one of the 10 commandments, '...bear false witness against thy neighbor'. That it's right there along with murder and adultery, lying is bad. She's a devout christian and it rang a few bells in her head. Every time I heard another one of his lies, I remembered her and wondered if it ever stuck.
I remember like it was yesterday when Dean Baquet went on Fresh Air in early 2017 and furrowed his brow and stroked his chin about how tricky it is to use the word "lie" in regard to Trump.
so embarrassing right? as i've pointed out elsewhere, there are some lies Trump has told 60, 70, 80 times. but the NYT can't figure out if he's just "misinformed"???
To me the “lie by any other name” posture taken by the MSM is simply to defend the office of president rather than Trump, and to go all out “he lies...”another lie“, “The liar” would derogate and degrade the office and admit that this country in fact has installed a willful and pathological liar as president. The media has taken upon itself to try to salvage a small measure of dignity for the presidency as an institution, perhaps even as a “patriotic” gesture, by bending over backwards and tying itself in knots in avoiding to call out Trump as a LIAR, and settling for less dramatic synonyms.
i think there are many reasons the press refuses to use "liar" and you've touched on a few....another: if he's a pathological liar, what would that say about the 2016 campaign coverage when the press covered him merely as a TV reality star?
Certainly Trump is a big fat lying liar literally and figuratively; however mainly he is a Bullshit Artist extraordinaire -- a con man so blatant even Marco Rubio recognized it once upon a time. Trump has no regard for the truth, casting everything in its most favorable light to himself. About the only media personality to flat out call Trump a Bullshit Artist is Fareed Zakaria. Just saying "Bullshit" back at Trump to me seems more effective than fact checking. As you've noted Eric, fact checking just normalizes the narrative and has no impact on Trumpers.
I've called "Bullshit" myself to Trump lovers, who sort-of concede the point with Fox-speak "he talks rough because he's a New Yorker and in construction, they talk like that" - mostly, his die-hard supporters don't care and willingly wallow in Trump's Bullshit with nary a care.
key point that often gets lost re: Trump lying: he's textbook pathological liar, which means there's no 'strategy' per se. he doesn't calculate when would be a good time/bad time to lie. he lies all the time. the press just can't or won't wrap its head around that
I remember back when he was first elected, one of the papers, I think it was the Times said something like, 'well, a lie is something that's intentional and since we can't know for sure whether he's purposefully misleading, falsifying, bullshitting, etc'ing - then we can't claim it's a lie'. Which is where the 'alternate facts' comes in. Someone 'told' him 'something', therefore he believes it's true.
yes, this sounds the sad excuse NYT has been using fir years
NYT's headlines are a perfect example of milquetoast journalism
What's at stake with this president is that the commander-in-chief is a threat to the relationship between civilian control and military strategy. When we tie that to Trump's personal use of a corrupt Justice Department, a castrated State Department, and a discredited Intelligence apparatus along with a treasury department debased by its leaders, Mr Boehlert is understating the case for the media's complicity. They are not watching the chipping away of democracy as much as reporting on its demolition.
the stakes are extraordinarily high fir sure. all the more reason the press should bring clarity
I continue to ask why but get no answer. I'm sorry to say it, but the news media see themselves as above being questioned, especially by peons like me. If I dared to walk up to a reporter and ask them a question, they would look at me as if I was an insect while muttering something under their breath.
Please continue holding their feet to the fire because they won't answer my phone calls.
truth is press has no good answer for why they won’t call Trump a liar, so they dodge the question.
thanks Nancy. and wow it’s so distressing to see how badly local journalism has fallen in recent years. I saw a headline over the weekend where a mid-size Ohio newspaper was down to a single reporter covering Metro section