Former President Donald Trump falsely claimed in a new interview that he didn’t make a “lock her up” call for the imprisonment of his Democratic opponent of the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton.
“Lied” implies intent, which is a very squishy subject. I’d prefer they stick to just the facts, please. I’m no lawyer, but I suspect you might be asking for libel suits if you claim somebody lied and can’t actually prove that they did so intentionally.
They accuse them of bad journalism. Supposing intent you can’t prove is the definition of bad journalism. People need to temper their instinctual emotions a bit. I’m upset about Trump being a serial liar too (which I can say, because I’m a nobody who can totally infer his intent) but cmon, can we not leave the very foundations of factual journalism in the dust in our quest to right that wrong?
Why does journalism need to spoonfeed people? Why can’t we take accountability? They report the facts. Facts are provable, with evidence. You can only very, very rarely prove intent with evidence. A lie is an untruth delivered with intent. They cannot prove that and as such should not report it. We, as readers, should then piece the facts together. They’re giving you facts, not teaching you how to think. It’s not their job.
Because most people are NPCs. They’ve been spoonfed their information for a century, and before that they just knew nothing. There has never been, and likely never will be, a period in history where the average person actually is an independent rational actor. Most people are proles
Let me get this straight: You’re not sure whether Trump did deliberately claim that he didn’t say, repeatedly, often, publicly, on the TV and on social media “lock her up”? You think he accidentally denied saying it, or you have come to doubt your recollection of “LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!”?
I’m thinking it doesn’t matter what we think, it matters which one could accrue expensive court costs. Because “false claim” is specific and provable, “lied” is murky and general. When it comes to libel and slander lawsuits, the legal system runs on semantics and pedantry.
Why should they open themselves to that kind of legal system enabled retribution? After all, we all know whose pants are on fire.
Trump would most definitely lose a libel case trying to claim that his obvious lie with transparent self-serving motivation was accidental or correct. He’s way too deep in legal costs and court cases to make an absurd suit like that, and there’s no point doing it because he doesn’t care that people know he’s an out and out liar.
The problem is Trump could claim “oops I forgot that I agreed with the crowd in 2016” and that is different than intentionally lying. That’s why journalists have to split hairs here; George Santos can be called a liar but saying Trump lied this time is harder. It opens a can of worms; when Biden inevitably gets a detail wrong in another story of his should they call him a liar?
This isn’t a detail, this was a campaign slogan. No one in their right mind would believe Trump didn’t know exactly what he was doing both then and now. Stop trying to introduce doubt where there is none, it’s absurd. (And no, he doesn’t want to spend more time and money in court right now.)
“Lied” implies intent, which is a very squishy subject. I’d prefer they stick to just the facts, please. I’m no lawyer, but I suspect you might be asking for libel suits if you claim somebody lied and can’t actually prove that they did so intentionally.
They accuse them of bad journalism. Supposing intent you can’t prove is the definition of bad journalism. People need to temper their instinctual emotions a bit. I’m upset about Trump being a serial liar too (which I can say, because I’m a nobody who can totally infer his intent) but cmon, can we not leave the very foundations of factual journalism in the dust in our quest to right that wrong?
If you can’t call a liar a liar that is not good journalism either
Why does journalism need to spoonfeed people? Why can’t we take accountability? They report the facts. Facts are provable, with evidence. You can only very, very rarely prove intent with evidence. A lie is an untruth delivered with intent. They cannot prove that and as such should not report it. We, as readers, should then piece the facts together. They’re giving you facts, not teaching you how to think. It’s not their job.
Because most people are NPCs. They’ve been spoonfed their information for a century, and before that they just knew nothing. There has never been, and likely never will be, a period in history where the average person actually is an independent rational actor. Most people are proles
Let me get this straight: You’re not sure whether Trump did deliberately claim that he didn’t say, repeatedly, often, publicly, on the TV and on social media “lock her up”? You think he accidentally denied saying it, or you have come to doubt your recollection of “LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!”?
I’m thinking it doesn’t matter what we think, it matters which one could accrue expensive court costs. Because “false claim” is specific and provable, “lied” is murky and general. When it comes to libel and slander lawsuits, the legal system runs on semantics and pedantry.
Why should they open themselves to that kind of legal system enabled retribution? After all, we all know whose pants are on fire.
Trump would most definitely lose a libel case trying to claim that his obvious lie with transparent self-serving motivation was accidental or correct. He’s way too deep in legal costs and court cases to make an absurd suit like that, and there’s no point doing it because he doesn’t care that people know he’s an out and out liar.
A libel case is different.
The problem is Trump could claim “oops I forgot that I agreed with the crowd in 2016” and that is different than intentionally lying. That’s why journalists have to split hairs here; George Santos can be called a liar but saying Trump lied this time is harder. It opens a can of worms; when Biden inevitably gets a detail wrong in another story of his should they call him a liar?
This isn’t a detail, this was a campaign slogan. No one in their right mind would believe Trump didn’t know exactly what he was doing both then and now. Stop trying to introduce doubt where there is none, it’s absurd. (And no, he doesn’t want to spend more time and money in court right now.)
In a weird way I agree with both you and the person you replied to. My own personal doublethink, I suppose.