The Economist on the Truth about Lies
The Economist put up an excellent article in both print and video form in the last days of 2019 and I published a reference to it on New Year's Eve.
What they had to say on calling out politicians and others who say things which are not true - and when we should accuse them of lying, talking nonsense, exaggerating, misleading people, or making a mistake is still very relevant today so I'm posting it again.
If you are registered to read the Economist online, you can find a text version here.
There is also a very good video version featuring Lane Greene, the Economist's language correspondent who I presume to have been the main author of the article, with similar but not quite identical script and this is available to watch via twitter here
or on YouTube, which will play if you click on the window below -
As they rightly say (in the print version)
"Journalists should be tough when powerful people say untrue things. When those statements first hit the headlines, “false” packs plenty of punch. Reporters should demand to know the reason for the false statements."
But, to quote the video version, after encouraging people to use words like "nonsense" and "exaggeration" where those are more appropriate, Lane Green argues that:
"Using these exact terms will only make it more effective when we catch powerful people red-handed in a true, no-doubt-about-it, lie."
What they had to say on calling out politicians and others who say things which are not true - and when we should accuse them of lying, talking nonsense, exaggerating, misleading people, or making a mistake is still very relevant today so I'm posting it again.
If you are registered to read the Economist online, you can find a text version here.
There is also a very good video version featuring Lane Greene, the Economist's language correspondent who I presume to have been the main author of the article, with similar but not quite identical script and this is available to watch via twitter here
or on YouTube, which will play if you click on the window below -
As they rightly say (in the print version)
"Journalists should be tough when powerful people say untrue things. When those statements first hit the headlines, “false” packs plenty of punch. Reporters should demand to know the reason for the false statements."
But, to quote the video version, after encouraging people to use words like "nonsense" and "exaggeration" where those are more appropriate, Lane Green argues that:
"Using these exact terms will only make it more effective when we catch powerful people red-handed in a true, no-doubt-about-it, lie."
Comments
But I do struggle when the weight of evidence combines with weasel words and politicans' propensity to spin furiously in a way that enables any rational individual to see that a) a statement being made is untrue b) the person saying it must know it to be untrue and c) they're saying it in order to deceive.
In that circumstance my judgement tells me they're lying, even though c) is not absolutely 100% objectively provable, because I don't *know* what they're thinking.
A fourth issue in this combination. of factors is somebody's past track record.
If someone has unquestionably, provably and substantially lied in the past (such that, say, they've been sacked for lying) - should we weigh that in our judgement of any suspect statements they make in the future? Are they "known liars", whose statements become more generally suspect? That's what we do in daily life, surely? Why should we give politicians the benefit of the doubt when they have lied majorly in the past, and are making substantial untrue statements now - statements that they *should* know are untrue, and statements that deceive in a way that benefits the teller?
The missing component is *knowing* what they are thinking when they make these false statements. But we already know they are prepared to lie, on matters of real substance, if it benefits them! Why would we *not* weigh that in our judgement of whether or not they are lying?
And they managed between them to get an awful lot more people killed than some of their predecessors and successors who were arguably worse human beings but better Prime Ministers and Presidents.
But the key point is this - if you want to set yourself up to judge the truthfulness of others you have apply at least as high a standard to yourself - which means only make the charges you can prove.
Indeed, to NOT judge whether people are liars or not without proof would be a very dangerous way to live. If I get a scam phone call I think "liar" and put the phone down, I don't wait to prove it! When a mischief maker at work tells me something is fine, when I suspect it's not, I think "liar" and proceed accordingly. When someone tells me they've just been mugged, and asks me can I spare a quid for their train fare home I make a very rapid judgement as to whether or not they're lying.
In none of these scenarios (and countless more we experience all the time) is there any proof involved. We all do this, all the time.
Why should we give politicians with a track record of lying a free pass to lie to us some more?
The first is nearly always going to have to be decided on balance of evidence.
In my opinion the latter should require something close to proof.
And if you annoy someone enough that they actually sue you, and you use a fair comment defence, (e.g. "I did say it but it's true!") UK libel law takes the same view.
I'll continue to be sure in my own mind when I'm being blatantly lied to by people in positions of power, and I'll continue to accept that, in clinging on to that power, they'll continue to swear blind that their lies are, in fact, the truth.
It has ever been thus.
Probably not in every individual case but certainly with the general principle.
In analysing why that might be so, I came to the following conclusions: I have a low stress, low status job - it's straightforward with virtually no conflict or negotiation required. If I make a mistake it'll either be a small one I can own up to without repercussions (this happens regularly) or a massive one that would involve loss of life and me going to court. Perjury is never a smart option and I like to think I'm reasonably smart.
I'm in a stable relationship of nearly 40 years - if I tried any substantial lying to my partner I'd be discovered instantly - she knows me too well.
I have a massive extended family that, since I was a child, has thrived on strong opinions and strong argument underpinned by an unshakeable understanding that we all love each other. So we can disagree passionately - we often do - without falling out, so no dissembling is required.
Despite being atheist most of my life, as a child I was an indoctrinated Christian, believing that lying was a sin. That sticks with me psychologically, even though sin has been nonsensical to me for over 40 years.
But perhaps most of all, I've always, ALWAYS been absolutely useless at lying. It's a skill I just don't have. It takes practice to lie effectively and as a child I quickly realised I was hopeless at it. (It probably helped that I was the sixth of seven children, so by the time I came along my parents were very practised at catching their children out when they fibbed).
It feels good not to be a liar and to never feel any pressure to say something important that I know to be not true, which is why I'd never get involved in party politics.
The imperative to toe the party line inevitably involves publicly agreeing with stuff that one doesn't honestly agree with - stuff that doesn't really stack up. Walking that tightrope between economy of information, spin, half-truths, untruths and outright lying must at times be exhausting.
I don't know how you and your peers do it, Chris. (Well, I know that some must be pretty amoral and sleep soundly despite telling absolute whoppers - we've all met folks like that.) But the ones with a conscience (and of course that includes you) deserve our thanks.
I honestly don't think you always remain balanced on that tightrope, but I do know that we need local politicians, however much we might slag them off.
I just wish we had an electoral system that didn't massively favour party candidates over independents. Now that would be truly transformational.
If we did, I think we'd see some surprisingly refreshing positions being taken by local politicians released from the yoke of party loyalty.
By the standards of a five year old about what a lie is - when one knowingly makes a directly false statement - , I kept it for at least the next six years - or at least, recognising with my adult perspective how good people are at selective memory I genuinely believed that I had not told a single lie for that length of time. After about five years of this I started, occasionally and only when the subject of lying came up, to boast that I hadn't told a lie for that length of time.
And then I heard a very wise teacher - a man of great moral strength who had survived a Japanese prisoner of war camp - interrogating a fellow pupil. He didn't quite catch him out in a direct lie but it was clear that the pupil concerned had arranged statements which were individually more or less true in a way calculated to deceive - as in the Blake quote, "A truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent."
And when Mr Bloxham said "So you told a lie by implication" part of my world crashed around me because I realised that part of how I had avoided telling lies for the past six years was by becoming an expert at using true statements to create the impression I wanted to create - which was not always a completely accurate impression.
So I had to recalibrate my view of what a lie was and set myself a higher standard, not to deceive people. the first difficult challenge that presented was a couple of weeks later when someone referred to my not having told a lie for years and I had to admit I no longer made that claim - though it helped to explain it that all the parties to the conversation had been in the classroom to hear Mr Bloxham's demolition of our colleague.
To set oneself the aim of not deceiving people is a much harder target however, not least because there is no clear dividing line between assembling and presenting the evidence to make a fundamentally honest case as strong as possible and the point where failure to mention one or more key facts becomes misleading or downright misrepresentation.
The classic example of a "truth told with bad intent" in this century was the £350 million a week figure on the side of the infamous red bus. I have had arguments about whether it is appropriate to call this a lie with a great many people.
Most of those who call the slogan on the bus a lie, just don't get that when I prefer to condemn that slogan all the other iterations of that particular dirty trick using different language I'm absolutely not defending it - just putting it into a different category of morally dubious behaviour, and being precise about what this was specifically in the hope that people will not fall into the same trap next time someone uses it.
Ironically when you get involved in politics you have to revert to the five-year old's definition of lying for many purposes, because the charge of lying under that definition can sometimes objectively be proved within reasonable doubt.
Politics is a team activity and that requires compromises and some form or party system. If every member of Cumbria County Council were to stick rigidly to exactly what they wanted to do on the budget and completely refuse to compromise you could have a motion and eighty-three amendments and none of them even seconded never mind passed.
That's one of the reasons why on every major local authority which I know of on which there are three or more independents, they sit for at least some purposes as an "Independent group." Bit of a contradiction in terms, but an inevitable one.
Look at the convolutions in the way "Independent" groups behave and you may realise that not all the problems of politics come from political parties.
I think there might be fewer "refreshing" or different positions from politicians if they were no longer in political parties than you suppose.
Of course, sometimes such groups can fall apart with highly disruptive consequences is they are part of a council administration - it's my impression that something of the kind is happening in Allerdale BC at the moment.
Defending a compromise policy which you might not regard as perfect but which you genuinely think is better than any alternative which has a realistic chance of being passed is neither untruthful nor dishonourable. I usually deal with it by cherry picking the aspects of the policy which I genuinely strongly agree with and arguing that passing the package will deliver them.
I've no problem with the need to compromise - my domestic arrangements are fundamentally underpinned by compromise, after all! But when I disagree with my partner, even while giving way, I don't have to pretend to agree with her.
No. It's the requirement, at times, to profess support for positions you don't actually agree with that must hurt. I'm sure you are vocal *within* your party when you disagree with a policy position but, ultimately, you have to support at least some of those positions in public - not just the parts you agree with, but the whole.
And when a senior party member makes a pronouncement that is complete rubbish (and please don't suggest it never happens!) it's not really acceptable for you to express your honest opinion of that rubbish - and at times you might even be urged to repeat that nonsense - no?
QI writes that the Yale Book of Quotations investigated the saying and presented the earliest known attribution to Lincoln in Golden Book magazine in November 1931 e.g. about 65 years after he died.
It's also been attributed to Mark Twain on even weaker evidence and to several other people.
But whoever first said it, the saying is still good advice!