That’s part of a reader’s comment on a New York Times story about a nutty conspiracy theory that wrecked a professional conference in Atlanta, Georgia.<\/p>\n
I can answer the question, which has been at the forefront of attacks on journalism for quite a few years — another effect of Trump’s malevolent presence in our lives.<\/p>\n
The word “lie” incorporates in its definition consciousness<\/em> of the falsehood in the statement. If a journalist, say, calls someone a liar, he\/she is stating that the liar is aware<\/em> that he is lying, is conscious of producing false information.<\/p>\n A “falsehood” is an a-factual statement by someone who may be ignorant of the facts, repeating something he or she has heard, or is deluded in some way. “Falsehood” is the proper word to use if a journalist has no proof that the person making the statement knows that the statement is a lie.<\/p>\n It’s tricky, yeah, but “falsehood” protects journalists from endless, mindless defamation lawsuits.* Aside from that, it’s an accurate word which does not<\/em> negate an intrinsic probability that the falsehood<\/em> is indeed a lie<\/em>.<\/p>\n It’s not even a subtle distinction. As a reader I’m<\/em> aware of it and I’ll bet you are, too. We readers are mentally and fearlessly allowed to assign the word “lie” to the stuff coming out of MAGA mouths.<\/p>\n So I suggest the antagonism to the vocabulary of journalists is misplaced. If you are desperate to have public figures labeled as liars, plenty of credible critics social media use that word — usually during their rants against print journalists who don’t.<\/p>\n *Without getting into the libel lawsuit Lillian Hellman filed against Mary McCarthy.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" That’s part of a reader’s comment on a New York Times story about a nutty conspiracy theory that wrecked a professional conference in Atlanta, Georgia. I can answer the question, which has been at the forefront of attacks on journalism … Continue reading