USING OUR WORDS: On the importance of calling lies "lies!"

WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2017

Part 3—Sometimes a less-than-great notion:
On January 21, 2017, the newly-inaugurated president, Donald J. Trump, journeyed south to CIA headquarters, where he made deathless remarks.

As sometimes happens, Trump seems to have made some inaccurate statements. In this part of a broadcast on NPR's Morning Edition program, national security correspondent Mary Louise Kelly cited two such remarks:
KELLY (1/23/17): In that same speech out of the CIA this weekend, Trump also falsely inflated the size of the crowd at his inauguration.

In talking about the weather, he described that when he began to speak at his inauguration, the rain stopped immediately. And in fact, you could see water beating on the lapel of his coat.
Kelly offered no direct quotes from Trump concerning these peculiar topics. That said, his comments about the size of the crowd and the heaven-sent weather still rank among the strangest and most obvious misstatements he has uttered to date.

One might even say that they rank among his craziest statements to date, correspondence to reality-wise.

At this point, a problem arose. In her report, Kelly described an array of statements by Trump as "false," as "provably not true," and as "untrue claims." She compared what Trump had said to what you could see "in fact."

That said, Kelly didn't say that Donald J. Trump had "lied" in maiing these deathless remarks. Within days, NPR was under attack from portions of the liberal world, which had just started its noble resistance, twenty-five years too late.

On January 26,
NPR ombudsman Elizabeth Jensen posted a column concerning the controversy. Jensen described the waves of complaints and summarized NPR policy:
JENSEN (1/26/17): This column will attempt to address the several hundred emails (and an untold number of social media posts) to my office and NPR's Audience Services department that were harshly critical of NPR's policy. I've included a representative sampling of listener letters below. They and others used words like "shocked," "appalled," "horrified," "cowardice," "sanctimonious," "timid" and "complicit." ...

The policy, in brief, is to largely avoid using the word "lie." As NPR's national security correspondent Mary Louise Kelly said Wednesday, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a "lie" as "'a false statement made with intent to deceive.' 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 fact..."

Michael Oreskes, NPR's head of news, added this: "Our job as journalists is to report—to find facts, establish their authenticity and share them with everybody. And I think that when you use words like lie, it gets in the way of that."
Should Kelly have referred to Trump's statements as "lies?" For unknown reasons, she had looked up the word in a dictionary after the complaints rolled in.

On the basis of what Kelly found, she stood behind her original choice of words. She said she didn't feel she could say, as a matter of fact, that the groaners in question were lies.

In several venues, Oreskes had offered a second reason for "largely avoiding" the use of that word. In response, the emails poured in, using other evocative words like "appalled," "horrified" and "complicit."

Our language gives us many ways to express our horror and shock. It also gives us many ways to describe inaccurate statements.

We'll discuss the development of our English language before the week is through. For today, let's consider what happened last May, when Masha Gessen, a highly respected journalist who has actually walked the walk, weighed in on this perhaps underwhelming subject.

In our view, Gessen has earned the respect she's afforded. On May 7, she delivered the Arthur Miller Lecture at the 2017 PEN World Voice Festival.

(To watch the lecture, just click here. For a lightly edited version of Gessen's remarks, you can just click this.)

Gessen spoke to a liberalish audience known, at least among itself, for its obvious maximal brilliance. As she started, she discussed the ways the public discourse in her native Russia had been compromised, undermined, damaged, undone by the end of the Soviet era.

It's a very important topic. She then began suggesting that a similar process is underway here, driven, in large part, by the weird and constant groaning misstatements of ruler-for-life Donald Trump.

Gessen is a serious, admirable journalist. She was discussing a very serious topic. That doesn't mean that her judgments were sound, or even that she was fully prepared to discuss the materials at hand, especially perhaps at a time like this, when tribal feeling is high.

Doggone it! Gessen introduced the transcript of an interview Donald J. Trump had recently conducted with Julie Pace of the Associated Pace. As she did, it seemed fairly clear that she hadn't fully familiarized herself with the transcript in question.

(For background information, see last Thursday's report.)

Anyone can make a mistake! In this case, the big, admittedly brilliant crowd laughed and applauded as Gessen was making hers.

Gessen was perhaps a bit unfair in her remarks about the Associated Press. From there, she quoted something Hannah Arendt once said about the way the world reveals itself to us limited individuals.

"Only in the freedom of our speaking with one another does the world, as that about which we speak, emerge in its objectivity and visibility from all sides," Arendt apparently said, part of a longer statement quoted by Gessen.

At this point, Gessen repeated one phrase from Arendt's remark. She then entered the fray concerning NPR:
GESSEN (5/7/17): “Only in the freedom of our speaking with one another.”

And to preserve that freedom, we have to become guardians of our language. We have to keep it alive and working. That means being very intentional about using words.

That means, for example, calling lies "lies."

I am actually—

[AUDIENCE APPLAUSE]

I am addressing specifically National Public Radio, home to the word "misstatement," among others.

The NPR argument is that the definition of "lie," their argument for not using the word "lie" when describing what Donald Trump does, is that the definition of "lie" involves intent. A lie is a statement made with the intention to deceive. And NPR does not have conclusive information on Trump's intent.

The problem is that the euphemism "misstatement" clearly connotes a lack of intent, as though Trump simply took an accidental wrong step.

And the thing is that words exist in time, right? The word "misstatement" suggests a singular occurrence, thereby eliding Trump's history of lying. The word "misstatement" as applied to Trump is actually a lie.

[AUDIENCE APPLAUSE]

It is actually a lie to think, or to claim, that there are neutral words. Words exist in time, words reflect a history, words reflect an understanding. And using words to lie destroys language.
Four months after Kelly's report, Gessen still felt that NPR was wrong, in a significant way. In the passage presented above, she made several claims about the way we need to protect our language, and through it our pubic discourse.

Gessen made these claims:

She said that, to keep our language alive, we need to call lies "lies."

She said that the term "misstatement" clearly implies that the person who made the misstatement did so in good faith.

She said the term "misstatement" suggests that only one misstatement has been made. She said the term "misstatement," applied to Trump, is itself a lie!

The audience applauded that statement. She then said there are no "neutral words," though we don't really know what she meant.

Gessen is an admirable figure. We won't vouch for her audience, limited individuals all.

That said, her statements that day made little real sense. Tomorrow, we'll issue a heartfelt plea to Gessen and others:

Gessen and others, please! Let's start using our words!

Tomorrow: "That means, for example, calling lies 'lies?' "

Who the Sam, Joe or Lauren Hill could disagree with that?

12 comments:

  1. Talking about lies, the nbcnews piece I'm reading informs:
    "The 184-page measure serves as a rebuke of the Kremlin's military aggression in Ukraine and Syria, where Russian President Vladimir Putin has backed President Bashar Assad."

    I'm not aware of any "military aggression in Ukraine", where the liberal-neonazi Kiev regime is killing 'their own people' in the breakaway region. Apparently the Donbas rebels are not worthy of western protection at all - as opposed to the Benghazi rebels, 6 years ago.

    Okay, I suppose this could be a difference of opinions. But Syria?!! "Kremlin's military aggression" - in Syria? This is purely Orwellian. The Russian Federation is invited by the legitimate Syrian government, represented in the UN - as opposed to the US military, which really does perpetrate what can reasonably be called "military aggression"...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ask Trump to clear this up for you. I'm sure he is well-versed in the facts on the ground, in both Syria and Ukraine, as well as deeply informed about our policies there.
      As the late, great Abraham Lincoln said: "Trump is the most presidential of presidents. He talks real good."

      Delete
    2. This blog is about the western establishment media, Anon.

      I'm sure there are tens of thousands of blogs and websites where you can ride your hobby-horse to death, and it'll be entirely appropriate.

      Delete
    3. Anon,
      Trump doesn't know anything. He's a Republican for fucks sake.

      Delete
  2. "One might even say that they rank among his craziest statements to date, correspondence to reality-wise."

    What? You've gotta be kidding. Quite simply, the guy talks the way ordinary people talk: 'I was getting home from work yesterday - it was the worst traffic I've seen in my life!'

    And this is his main strength, whether natural or political brilliance I don't know, but if I had to guess: probably natural. He talks like a normal everyday person, a working-class new yorker, not like a robotic scripted politician whose every word is approved by the legal department and hordes of political consultants.

    Nothing 'crazy' about this at all...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, it is quite insane, and while you may not be crazy, you are certainly as stupid an individual as one expect to be able to find the front door.
      The President of the United States is not supposed to talk like an "ordinary person" (even one not quite so averagely stupid as those you seem to hang with), because he is not an average person. The risks of him or her speaking that way are great.
      The average person is not willfully bigoted or vindictive, stupid, tasteless, and mean. Trump is obviously all these things, as well as a greedy traitor to our Country.
      He also lost by almost 3 million votes, a topic which, weather Bob wants to admit it or not, he lied about. One topic, of course, of many.

      Delete
  3. A jew lecturing people about lying is a rich sight to behold. This is a people that has not only gotten by, but absolutely prospered in otherwise homogenous societies, largely though deceit. To the point that they routinely got ejected wholesale from said societies.

    Gessen herself is a liar:

    "Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change."

    The entire liberal paradigm is built on one giant lie: that we are all equal. Well, we'll soon put that lie to rest, and will shut the lying mouths of these "activists" and "journalists." I aim to see the likes of Gessen decorating streetlights around the nation and the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A jew lecturing people about lying is a rich sight to behold."
      How rich could it be? The Republican Party hasn't even given it a tax break yet.

      Delete
    2. Behold what Bob has brought about with his foolish rantings of the last ten years or so.

      Delete
  4. Now you can get ex-Lover back and stop a divorce or break-up…Even If Your Situation Seems Hopeless.! My husband said he no longer loved me at the end of May this year and i was hurt and heart broken i felt like my life was about to end and I almost committed suicide, I was emotionally down for a very long time. Thanks to a spell caster called Dr.Unity, which I meet online, on one faithful day, as I was browsing through the internet and I came across a lot of testimonies about this particular spell caster. Some people testified that he brought their Ex lover back, some testified that he restores womb, cure cancer and other sickness, some testified that he can cast a spell to stop divorce and so on. I also come across one particular testimony and it was about a woman called Tracey Hilton, she testified about how he brought back her Ex lover in less than 28 hours and at the end of her testimony she dropped Dr.Unity mail address. After reading all these,I decided to give it a try and I contacted him via email and explained my problem to him. and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a Love spell for me. In just 26 hours, my husband came back to me and we solved our issues, we are even happier than before. Dr.Unity is really a gifted man and I will not stop testifying about him because he is a wonderful man and so powerful... if you are here and you need your Ex back or your husband moved to another woman, do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster now and i guarantee you that he will help you. Here’s his contact: Email him at: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com , you can also call him or add him on Whats-app: +2348071622464 ,

    you can also visit his website:http://unityspelltemple.webs.com ,
    his blog:http://drunitytemple.blogspot.com .

    Miriam Michel / UK ..

    ReplyDelete