NPR promises that as soon as Donald Trump acknowledges that he intends to deceive, it’ll label it a “lie.”
After much back and forth over the past few weeks, National Public Radio finally clarified their editorial stance on when it is and isn’t appropriate to call a lie a lie, a determination that many commentators found wanting. NPR’s Richard Gonzales (1/25/16) wrote Wednesday:
Now many listeners want to know why [NPR correspondent Mary Louise] Kelly didn’t just call the president a liar.
On Morning Edition, Kelly explains why. She says she went to the Oxford English Dictionary seeking the definition of “lie.”
“A false statement made with intent to deceive,” Kelly says. “Intent being the key word there. Without the ability to peer into Donald Trump’s head, I can’t tell you what his intent was. I can tell you what he said and how that squares, or doesn’t, with facts.”
This is a definition of “lying” that renders the very concept of lying meaningless. As The Intercept’s Sam Biddle noted, “by this definition, you could literally never say someone is lying unless you’re talking about yourself.” So unless an NPR reporter can prove Trump’s state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt, they have to be intent-agnostic about the falsehood. Even if the lie in question—that millions of people voted illegally—has been shown to be false dozens of times, including directly to Trump’s press secretary.
Further clarification by NPR seemed to imply the issue was also about not wanting to appear partisan or anti-Trump. Which is likely the primary motivator, as Gonzales’ recounting of his boss’s views suggests:
NPR’s senior vice president for news, Michael Oreskes, says NPR has decided not to use the word “lie” and that Kelly got it right by avoiding that word.
“Our job as journalists is to report, to find facts, and establish their authenticity and share them with everybody,” says Oreskes. “It’s really important that people understand that these aren’t our opinions…. These are things we’ve established through our journalism, through our reporting … and I think the minute you start branding things with a word like ‘lie,’ you push people away from you.”
NPR is notorious for bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of a liberal bias, even refusing to carry an opera program in 2011 after its host participated in an Occupy protest. But, in the age of Trump and his unprecedentedly loose relationship with reality, its strict adherence to “both sides” journalism does a great disservice to their listeners—to say nothing of the truth.
Federal funding, according to NPR’s own website, is “essential” to its ability to operate, comprising roughly 6 percent–10 percent of its total revenue, depending on how one parses it. Given Trump’s capricious, vengeful disposition; his already overtly hostile relationship with non-compliant government agencies; and the Republican Party’s existing hatred of publicly funded media, the stir that would be caused by using the L-word may be seen as too great a risk.
This, however, isn’t the first time that NPR’s playing “both sides” semantic games has provided cover for right-wing forces. For years, NPR obscured reality on the issue of US torture, routinely using the word for other regimes but never for their own (FAIR.org, 5/6/09, 12/14/14). Then–NPR ombud Alicia Shepard (6/21/09), after much fretting, provided an excuse similar to to the one given yesterday:
It’s a no-win case for journalists. If journalists use the words “harsh interrogation techniques,” they can be seen as siding with the White House and the language that some US officials, particularly in the Bush administration, prefer. If journalists use the word “torture,” then they can be accused of siding with those who are particularly and visibly still angry at the previous administration.
Note the criteria of “can be accused” of taking sides. The issue is not tethered to objective reality, it is tethered to political considerations, namely what the listener will or will not see as side-taking. Or, more to the point, what NPR’s major corporate, foundation and government donors see as side-taking.
While there are certainly grey areas, the claim that millions voted illegally in the 2016 presidential election is objectively false. And the fact that Trump has repeated it over and over again, despite being corrected over and over again, indicates he is acting in bad faith. One does not need to “peer into Donald Trump’s head” to infer he is lying; one simply needs to acknowledge the most baseline standards of reality.
That, NPR has announced, is something it is unwilling to do.
Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. You can find him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.
You can contact NPR ombud Elizabeth Jensen via NPR’s contact form or via Twitter: @ejensenNYC. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
N ot
P artial to
R eality
Good one ,Doug. NPR is a fraud. How can they call themselves “independent journalism”?
Just where is the public in “public” radio?
I don’t think it ever billed itself as independent, but I do think many people make the mistake of equating “public” with “independent.” I used to be one of those people, until I took a closer look at their funders. So disappointing.
NPR is not independent anymore. If Trump doesn’t “like” them, his party won’t fund them.
Anyone can *call* someone a liar or *claim* someone is lying, but neither of these is the role of good journalism. You cannot *know* someone is lying anymore than you can know someone loves you. Avoiding the word “lie” is good journalism and should be supported by FAIR, regardless of which nitwit we all think is lying.
You, Mr Adam Johnson, also avoid explicitely calling DT liar. This is not only journalistic good sense, it makes legal sense, and leaves opinion making open. No idea iff DT intends to deceive, or intends to provoke, or is remote-controlled to do a script. Indeed I coulödn’t care less that he lies. It is the reason and the context not the label that count.
“You, Mr Adam Johnson, also avoid explicitly calling DT a liar.” You, Mr HG, missed the entire point.
I don’t think NPR has an easy time of it. I mean, try getting your money from the government and not responding to partisan influences ever at all. I have many many beefs w/NPR’s coverage of certain issues, but in this case, I really don’t think the journalist has to do anything but report the facts that journalist finds. If they contradict an official version of events, then it’s enough to report the findings.
Speaking for myself I don’t feel a need for any reporting to use language of characterization. It’s unavoidable in some situations, but in this case it seems to be enough to report the contrasting narratives.
How about “false’? Can journalists say a statement is false? Can journalists then write or say that the (ahem) President has uttered a(nother) falsehood? As long as he is not called a falsifier? If facts and photos and numbers are this difficult to apprehend and convey, we are in Orwell territory.
I want to believe that there is a concerned network of journalists out there exposing truth. I have wanted this for years to the detriment of my own critical faculties. I’m not satirizing anyone; I’m describing myself. Even as a regular reader of FAIR (off an on) since the 90s, I’m honestly surprised (and ashamed) by my new re-cognition that NPR hosts, the main ones, are either avuncular, impotent naysayers (with timely chuckles) or maternal Good Night Moon readers as they parcel off the day’s happenings in feminine whispers, lulling all to sleep.
“I want to believe that there is a concerned network of journalists out there exposing truth.” There is. It’s called Independent Media.
Who is “independent media?” What is meant by this moniker? I understand the common definition is that these orgs don’t take corporate money, but some do take an ideological position that compromises their reporting. So how “independent” is that?
It means independent from government and corporate funding. It means not beholden to special interests. It means having the freedom to tell the truth – both to the public and to power. It means their only “agenda” is combatting the mis/disinformation of mainstream (aka corporate-funded) media.
So, when considering a source, read their ‘About’ page, and research who their funders/sponsors are.
In a time of absolutely crazy, being accused of taking the “side” of truthiness instead of the crazy is imperative…
But it won’t happen…
Trump is obviously repeating a falsehood. God only knows what is going on in his head. To the extent that there is any logic to his thinking it is probably something like this: “I’m fabulous; if I run for president I will win by a landslide; if I won but only won in the electoral college there must be a reason; the reason must be – uh… Illegal Voting! There is no way in a fair election I would not win in landslide.”
If he were merely lying he would have to admit to himself that it was possible that he could lose the popular vote, something it appears he is unable to do.
If we’re going to dive into the steamy swamp of Trump psychology lets make an effort at accuracy, even though it is impossible to diagnose someone from 1000 miles away. ‘Liar’ doesn’t begin to describe the problem. What he actually is one very messed up narcissistic megalomaniac. Not something that is going to be heard on NPR or anywhere else – ever.
So maybe it is better to just point out that his oft repeated tic is false, rather than underestimating the enormity of the problem by calling him an ordinarily venal liar.
Good point.
Kelly’s claim that “[w]ithout the ability to peer into Donald Trump’s head, I can’t tell you what his intent was,” in justifying the decision to not call a false statement “a lie,” is on a par with Obama’s infamous desire to look forward instead of to the past, as the rationale to not investigate, much less prosecute those criminals in the financial services sector for their multiple, well-documented felonies that helped cause the Crash of 2008, as well as those who, well, “tortured a few folks,” by deed or authorization.
In both cases the speakers and the institutions that they represent are brought to heel by the Power Elite who control the media and the government. In both cases, the “reasoning” results in never being able to call anyone a liar (who can ever truly see inside a person’s mind and intentions?) or criminally prosecute anyone for any criminal activity that occurred prior to the decision to not prosecute. Forward, Ho!
NPR has been National Propaganda Radio since the 2000 rigged election. Zero cred.
National Propaganda Radio & Not Partial to Reality LOL those are great ones :) God corporate and state run media suck. Thanks Adam and FAIR for your tireless mythbusting as usual.
Re Adam Johnson’s piece about Trump lying and NPR refusing to call it a lie, I would like to add something that may help explain some of the disagreement. Trump without doubt has a personality disorder called Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This disorder can be described symptomatically to affect people who have it on a continuum of degree, from
mild to severe. At its most severe narcissism can be called sociopathic, psychotic or malignant. I believe Trump’s narcissism is malignant. Many psychologists have weighed in on this and you can find their articles on the internet, and yes, you have to be careful about distinguishing “real” articles from fake articles. But my point is this: Severe forms of narcissism cause the person suffering with it to
be delusional. I believe Trump is indeed delusional as evidenced by his inability to separate facts from lies. What seems obvious to a normal person isn’t obvious to Trump. He, as well as other narcissists at the extreme end of this disorder make things up because they cannot tolerate the truth. Then, whatever they make up is their “truth.” As bizarre as this is, I have personally observed narcissistic family
members do it on a regular basis. There is no amount of persuasion or confrontation with facts that will move a narcissist into not believing their delusions. They cling to their delusions no matter what. That is what makes it so difficult to deal with them and what creates confusion about calling a lie what it really is…a lie. In the narcissist’s mind his delusions are truth and they will always be his truth. Knowing this about Trump should make us even more terrified. It certainly makes me terrified of how wrong things will get with him in charge. His Republican colleagues are enabling him because, so far it has gotten them what they want. But, what if Trump perceives that a foreign power has attacked the US? Even if there is no basis in reality for that belief, he will react to it as if it is true and possibly get us into a war. That should terrify anyone. Trump’s enablers are playing with fire, and I don’t think they get that.