How bad does elite reporting get?

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2023

Consider the case of George Santos: Is there really any such thing as a "compulsive / pathological liar?"

You hear those twin terms thrown around all the time. But is some such psychiatric syndrome actually known or believed to exist?

We've been wondering about that question for the obvious reason. The lunacy of many of George Santos' claims has us wondering about what can explain his behavior.

Is Santos some sort of "compulsive liar?" Do such people even exist? The leading authority on the topic offers the following overview at the start of a much longer discussion. In general, it seems to align with what we've read at other more specialized sites:

Pathological lying

Pathological lying, also known as mythomania and pseudologia fantastica, is a chronic behavior in which the person habitually or compulsively lies. These lies often serve no obvious purpose other than to paint oneself as a hero or victim, depending on the circumstance. Pathological lying has been defined as: "a persistent, pervasive, and often compulsive pattern of excessive lying behavior that leads to clinically significant impairment of functioning in social, occupational, or other areas; causes marked distress; poses a risk to the self or others; and occurs for longer than six months." Others have defined pathological lying as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view..."

It was first described in the medical literature in 1890 by G. Stanley Hall and in 1891 by Anton Delbrück. There is still much controversy in the fields of psychology and psychiatry about whether or not pathological lying is a unique disorder or merely a symptom of other disorders. A widely agreed-upon description of or diagnostic criteria for pathological lying behaviour does not exist, resulting in controversy regarding what it truly means to be a pathological liar. 

[...]

Pathological lying is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, although only as a symptom of other disorders such as antisocial, narcissistic, and histrionic personality disorders, not as a stand-alone diagnosis. 

Is there any such thing as a "pathological liar?" According to that account, the syndrome isn't listed in the DSM "as a stand-alone diagnosis." It is, however, included therein "as a symptom of other disorders."

That leaves us wondering what a qualified medical specialist might say about the long-standing, extremely strange behavior of Santos, our most widely discussed member of Congress. Inevitably, we had seen no such discussion in the upper-end mainstream press or on our favorite "cable news" programs, despite the endless hours our cable stars waste clucking about his conduct.

Yesterday, the Washington Post attempted to report on this question, or it may be that the Washington Post just pretended to do so. We were attracted to the report by the unintentionally childish way the report was headlined on the seemingly endless front page of the Post's devolving web site:

What made George Santos lie so much? Experts weigh in on his deception.
We asked lie experts to weigh in on George Santos and compare him with convicted fabulists such as Bernie Madoff and Elizabeth Holmes. 

Seriously though, folks! According to that sub-headline, the Post had asked an array of "lie experts" to help them assess the behavior of America's best-known member of Congress.

The Post had consulted a bunch of "lie experts!" Was the Post presenting a real report, or were they just pretending? 

The assignment had gone to Roxanne Roberts, a good, decent person who isn't a medical journalist or even a science writer. That same leading authority offers this overview:

Roxanne M. Roberts (born 1954 in Minneapolis, Minnesota) is a style writer for The Washington Post. She was co-author of "The Reliable Source" column with Amy Argetsinger, the paper's daily chronicle of Washington D.C.'s notables and society events. She is a regular panelist on the NPR quiz show Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!

In 2000, Roberts appeared on the "In" list in Washingtonian magazine...

Roberts is a good person. It isn't her fault that she isn't a medical journalist; we aren't medical journalists either. Very few people are, but major newspapers like the Post used to employ some such people.

That said, Roberts' report was predictably thin and pointless. She quoted zero medical specialists as she gossip-columned her way through the pointless pseudo-report.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but our upper-end journalism is very weak. The Washington Post in particular is visibly falling apart.

For extra credit only: Tucker Carlson tangentially tackled this topic last night. For Mediaite's report on the clown show which ensued, you can just click here.