Right, Wrong, and Lies

I recently watched an interview about the proposed economic stimulus plan. This one happened to be on Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” on Fox News, but I’ve seen similar ones on CNN and CNBC. Mr. Cavuto was interviewing a Congressman—I don’t recall his name, but it doesn’t matter, since I wouldn’t repeat it in this context.

Cavuto’s point was that the Congressional Budget Office had stated that of the billions of dollars proposed for the stimulus; only a few percent would actually be spent in 2009. Only a few more would be spent in 2010. So, that wouldn’t have much stimulatory effect. The Congressman stated that was wrong—that the CBO figures were inaccurate; it was more like half in 2009 and two-thirds by 2010.

And here’s the problem—he didn’t offer any support for that position. He simply stated the CBO figures were wrong. Maybe they are; maybe they aren’t—but, he didn’t offer any rationale for why his position should be considered more accurate than the CBO’s.

That left Mr. Cavuto with a quandary. He could argue with the Congressman, but that would simply devolve into “Is not/Is too!” It was an interview, and there wasn’t time to go do research. Alternately, Cavuto could accept that maybe the CBO was wrong and the Congressman was right. Or, he could call the Congressman a liar. That’s right—on nationwide TV, simply state, “Congressman, I don’t believe you, and I don’t think you believe it either. You are deliberately misrepresenting the facts, because you’re hoping I won’t dare call you out—and hoping that instead, I’ll grant your position for the sake of argument. You, sir, are a liar.” But, of course, he didn’t call him out; he did effectively accept the Congressman’s position for the duration of the interview.

Nice trick. And, more than a little outrageous.

There was a time—I think—when most people tried to make rational arguments based on what they believed to be true. At some point, somebody realized that truth is irrelevant in the interview. If you don’t mind making an obscenely dishonest case, you can get the obscenely dishonest case into the public mind. I’d like to think this is because the average journalist just can’t quite believe that anyone would simply bald-face lie to them.

But, they do.

During the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, Hezbollah arranged utterly fake photo ops, with live people pretending to be bodies. Photojournalist frauds sent pictures of burning garbage dumps to major US magazines (Time and Newsweek, among others), claiming they were pictures of Israeli attacks. The pictures ended up as cover stories. When the falsehood was revealed, the magazines were embarrassed, and there were back-page corrections written weeks or months later, but the press certainly didn’t run an outraged cover story condemning the practice.

Why not?

The optimist in me wants to believe that it’s just human nature—no one wants to admit they were fooled. But, the realist in me worries. Specifically, I worry about the concept of the narrative—the story that is already written, in which the journalist is simply looking for some facts to “confirm” what he has already decided to write. The alleged Duke “rape” case is a particularly egregious instance of the “narrative,” but the general trend is exactly what conservatives scream about when they claim media bias. Their “other side” makes outrageous claims that are simply not challenged—so, instead of arguing about which solution is better, the defender first has to explain that the other side’s case doesn’t even hold water.

I've seen this dirty trick tried on Rush Limbaugh, at least three times. (I'll detail them in the comments, if anyone ever asks.) Nevermind your opinion of the talk show host (or mine). In all cases, the perpetrators knew full well that what they were saying was simply untrue. Not "opinion." Not "responsible people can disagree." Not even "the scientific consensus disputes your position." I mean Un-True--as in, February comes after January each year and claims to the contrary are untrue. But, they counted on the lie being believed, and when it was challenged, they made even more outrageous claims--usually backstopped by a claim that since Limbaugh is partisan, that makes the attack acceptable. What kind of logic is that?

That’s a real problem—because while Mr. Limbaugh has a radio show to make his case, most people don't. And once a side becomes convinced it can’t get a fair hearing, it will stop trying to be reasonable. At which point, both sides are on the path to outrageous.