Reporting on 'Lies' and 'Liars' ...

Previously, I posted about the problematic use of the "lies" and "liars" frame to express disagreement with one's political opponents (using the Congressman Wilson outburst Wednesday night as a springboard).

One of my Facebook friends subsequently posted a note referencing an article from Fox News reporting that President Obama called Sarah Palin a liar, "wondering" if the president would apologize to her.

I chuckled at that, and then paused. I initially assumed the article was referencing some moment from the campaign trail. I certainly didn't recall candidate Obama ever calling Palin a liar, certainly not directly, but I certainly can't claim to have consumed every single moment of the campaign trail coverage.

But the article was not addressing the campaign trail. The article, titled "Obama Calls Palin a Liar During Speech" was referencing Wednesday's health care speech.

Confused (I didn't remember the president mentioning Sarah Palin in the speech), I called up the Fox News article in question. Turns out it was simply a headline with a one-sentence blurb and an article link. The article link refers to an AP story, Obama: Claims of death panels are a 'lie.'

First of all, it should be mentioned that rewriting headlines to AP stories is hardly an uncommon occurrence. In the newsroom, editors often rewrite headlines to localize the story, conserve space, or for any of a number of other editorial considerations. But this revision was more than merely economizing words. The AP's story reports that Obama stated that certain claims were "lies." The Fox News article composed a new statement inferring, since Sarah Palin had made such a claim, that Obama was (in effect only, though this point is lost) calling Palin a "liar."

That's a stretch, even in these detail-challenged times.

Second, I find it interesting that Fox rewrote the headline of a three-paragraph story and then didn't even run the actual story. Just the rewritten headline and the first line of the story, with a link to the article (the link source is also not explicated). This practice is also not particularly unusual, but when an outlet significantly rewrites a headline and then doesn't run the entire text of a story, it looks bad. It certainly fooled my Facebook friend, who used the headline to wonder if the president would apologize to Palin for something a Fox editor wrote.

Third, this extension of objective logic of an isolated statement into a moral statement drawn from independent statements of others is problematic. If I say that a statement is a "lie," does that mean that I have now accused every person who passes along the statement of lying? Where is the space for misunderstanding? Ignorance? Faulty logic? Mistakes?

It's well-established that Sarah Palin did not originate the "death camps" argument, only the wording. The statement apparently originated with Betsy McCaughey, and McCaughey herself has backtracked from her original remarks.

If, in her original premise, McCaughey made a mistake of logic, comprehension, or even if she had deceit as her motives for her statements, does that lead one to conclude that Palin lied when she repeated the statements? Is it not possible that Palin believed McCaughey's words were true? How would one establish support for such a conclusion?

And even if one could establish that Palin knew the statements were false and repeated them anyway, does that make her a "liar"? How many lies does it take to make one a "liar"? One? 20? 100? 500? Is it a calculated percentage of truth/lies in public statements?

This is why rewriting headlines to extend a statement to an indirect object are so dangerous in a democracy. The headlines alone spread false impressions. In this case, the headline infers that the president might appear to be a hypocrite for seeming to call for an apology (which he did not actually do) for an action that he himself appears unwilling to apologize for (an action he doesn't seem to have actually performed).

Though it might seem that I'm picking on Fox News for this practice, I've seen quite a few rewritten headlines at CNN's site that also don't appear supported by the stories to which they refer. I remember a couple of months ago, several CNN headlines tended to include the word "slammed" and "slapped down" as an action verb in several headlines for stories in which no motive or intention was discussed. Particularly in stories related to the White House response to the "birther" movement.

The difference between "disputes" and "slaps down" is rather large. We teach our journalism students to adopt more objective terminology, if only to maintain accuracy (one never knows, much less can prove, the contents of another's mind enough to establish motive without evidence).

Follow J. Richard Stevens on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jrichardstevens

Comments

[strangelet]

02:36 AM on 09/14/2009

As it happens, I have given some thought to this question. My conclusion is that there is a kind of spectrum of lies. It's pretty broad. At the benign end, of course, there is the white lie, or the social lie -- "you look terrific"; "no, I haven't planned anything for your birthday"; etc. At the far other end there is the intentional, malicious lie -- saying something that you know is not true, with the intention of causing harm to someone else. (The "Big Lie" of governments is just a multi-victim extension of the same thing).

In between, there is a whole range of lies, some of which are traditionally called lies, and some of which are traditionally given other names: "misinformation", "overstatement", "hyperbole", "unverified claims", "inaccuracy", "imprecision".

The thing is, they are still lies. Even if unintentional. Even if the person stating them believes them.

I propose this definition of a lie:

Asserting a statement as being true when you do not actually possess reasonable proof that it is true.

Now, this makes no distinction between malicious lies and the social lies that grease the wheels of civilization. That distinction requires evaluating intent, and that's too long for a Huffer comment. But it does address one of the questions in the original post: if someone passes along a lie, they ARE also lying, because they have no reasonable proof of its truth.

[balmora]

02:27 AM on 09/14/2009

Dean Heller, R-Nev., had offered an amendment that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized healthcare under the proposed plan by enforcement of verification. The House Ways and Means Committee nixed the Heller amendment. Joe Wilson knew that the amendment had been removed from the bill, and that would lead anybody to ask the question of why. If illegals were not going to be covered than why remover the means of enforcement? It's a gray area any way you look at it. The President, Wilson though, was telling people that illegals are not covered, which technically is true, but NOT telling people that the enforcement mechanism had been deliberately removed from the proposed bills.

[ephoenix5]

11:37 AM on 09/13/2009

Yes, I agree that it is stretch for the mumble jumble journalism Faux News does -- but besides that. Even if it were true that Obama called her a liar -- ah... we seem to be missing the point that she is.

And Obama didn't single her out -- this does not compare to the Wilson outburst at all. In which Obama was delivering an address to the joint session of congress -- during which time it is appropriate to allow the President to deliver his address uninterrupted as a sign of a civil society. He is the elected official that has this capacity -- he has earned by virtue of our vote -- the right to speak uninterrupted at the Bully Pulpit -- now we demand that right be given to the choice of the people. Obama didn't go heckle Sarah Palin at any time -- much less at speech. Fox News -- I got to tell you -- we should just label then a terrorist outfit -- enough of the lies -- enough of aiding and abetting right wing extremists -- who are not better than Al-Quaida terrorists bent on spilling innocent American blood.

[genmanager]

04:51 PM on 09/12/2009

In the world of "reporters rules" as in taught in journalism school, where does common sense and reporting the truth come in. We all know that on television most shows put on two pundits from opposite sides of the issue, and try to give them equal time. Are students taught that reporters are supposed, or I guess a better word would be to "report" to the viewers, the truth?
I feel that unlike Walter Cronkite and others of his era, today's reporters hardly ever feel the need to report the truth, only to present two sides. This is where I think that common sense comes in. If someone shouts "You're a liar" because he supports giving healthcare to undocumented immigrants and a reporter is presenting the issue to viewers, should that reporter perhaps present people from different sides of the issue, then perhaps do a fact check at one of the sites and "reports" which one is telling the truth?
I'm just asking, because I honestly believe our country is going down the tube with all the non-reporter opinion shows which seem to be just about everybody.