Wall Street Journal Editor Says His Newspaper Won’t Call Donald Trump’s Lies ‘Lies’

[GMDino]

I wonder who owns the WSJ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-journal-lies-donald-trump_us_586934b8e4b0eb586489df43

Quote:Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker said his newspaper would not refer to false statements from the Trump administration as “lies,” because doing so would ascribe a “moral intent” to the statements.

Baker appeared on NBC’s “Meet The Press” Sunday, where he described some of President-elect Donald Trump’s falsehoods as “questionable” and “challengeable.” But, he said, “I’d be careful about using the word ‘lie.’ ‘Lie’ implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.”

He said reporters should state the facts, but leave classifying them to readers, citing the example of Trump’s claim that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey were celebrating on 9/11 (which is false).

“I think it’s then up to the reader to make up their own mind to say, ‘This is what Donald Trump says. This is what a reliable, trustworthy news organization reports. And you know what? I don’t think that’s true.’”

The New York Times editorial board has used “lie” to describe Trump’s rampant abuse of facts. And Washington Post conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin has taken the media to task for not using the word. Other outlets ― including MSNBC, New York Magazine and HuffPost ― will use the word when it’s merited.

But Baker said that in doing so, “you run the risk that you look like you are, you’re not being, objective.”

Baker also suggested that Trump is being treated differently than other politicians. “This is happening all the time now, people are looking at what Donald Trump’s saying and saying, ‘This is false, it’s a false claim.’ I think people are saying, ‘You know what, Hillary Clinton said a lot things that were false.’ I don’t remember the press being quite so concerned about saying she lied in headlines and stories like that.”

[JustWinBaby]

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor

[Rotobeast]

(01-02-2017, 12:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: I wonder who owns the WSJ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-journal-lies-donald-trump_us_586934b8e4b0eb586489df43

While Trump isn't on my trustworthy list, I'm ok with the idea of news sources not labeling things.
I'd like to be shown facts that contradict previous facts, so I might determine if a lie took place, myself.
Give me stories with "you decide" at the end.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-02-2017, 02:29 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: While Trump isn't on my trustworthy list, I'm ok with the idea of news sources not labeling things.
I'd like to be shown facts that contradict previous facts, so I might determine if a lie took place, myself.
Give me stories with "you decide" at the end.

Yeah, decorum precedent usually means you don't outright accuse the POTUS of lying.  Trump has been tearing that down, though, so maybe all bets are off.

To me the bigger story is the Obama admin and liberal media trying to tear down and de-legitmize conservative media, and Trump appearing to put that on steroids and more or less establish state-run propaganda.  Always bothered me when Obama would call out Fox News, and now Trump is basically saying "if you criticize me, then I'll just cut you off".

Fortunately, this could be a positive to waking up ALL media

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-02-2017, 03:35 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yeah, decorum precedent usually means you don't outright accuse the POTUS of lying.  Trump has been tearing that down, though, so maybe all bets are off.

To me the bigger story is the Obama admin and liberal media trying to tear down and de-legitmize conservative media, and Trump appearing to put that on steroids and more or less establish state-run propaganda.  Always bothered me when Obama would call out Fox News, and now Trump is basically saying "if you criticize me, then I'll just cut you off".

Fortunately, this could be a positive to waking up ALL media

[Belsnickel]

(01-02-2017, 03:35 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Fortunately, this could be a positive to waking up ALL media

That was a lot of the discussion this weekend on Meet the Press. Essentially, what does the media need to do to regain that credibility and do their jobs effectively. I had never watched the show before, but it was very interesting and I got sucked in.

As to the OP, I am mixed. If a false statement is made, I think it should be labeled as false. I get the whole idea of calling it a lie being seen as a judgment rather than an objective statement. I said Sean Spicer lied this morning because he should have known better, and if he didn't then that us shameful, but not every false statement is necessarily done purposefully or with extreme negligence.

[Griever]

Trumps feeling hurt when he gets called on his lies

His skin is thinner than an 11 year old girl

[GMDino]

if Trump tweets/says something demonstrably false it is either a lie or he is ignorant to the truth.

So either he is deliberately misleading or is dumb.

Pick your poison.

[Rotobeast]

(01-02-2017, 01:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: if Trump tweets/says something demonstrably false it is either a lie or he is ignorant to the truth.

So either he is deliberately misleading or is dumb.

Pick your poison.

[6andcounting]

(01-02-2017, 01:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor

It's Bush's fault.

It's Trump's fault.

It's Putin fault.

BOOM!

[BmorePat87]

(01-02-2017, 12:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: I wonder who owns the WSJ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-journal-lies-donald-trump_us_586934b8e4b0eb586489df43

“I’d be careful about using the word ‘lie.’ ‘Lie’ implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.”


I see nothing wrong with this statement, and that is coming from someone who believes Donald Trump is completely unqualified and proven to be too incompetent for the role he is about to assume.

[Benton]

(01-02-2017, 03:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: “I’d be careful about using the word ‘lie.’ ‘Lie’ implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.”


I see nothing wrong with this statement, and that is coming from someone who believes Donald Trump is completely unqualified and proven to be too incompetent for the role he is about to assume.

Agreed.

Really, in journalism, the only time they should be using the word is if it's deliberate (which is often hard to prove) or willfully negligent. In print, occasionally copy editors or headline writers will try to chop a headline down and toss lie in there, but they shouldn't.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-02-2017, 02:29 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: While Trump isn't on my trustworthy list, I'm ok with the idea of news sources not labeling things.
I'd like to be shown facts that contradict previous facts, so I might determine if a lie took place, myself.
Give me stories with "you decide" at the end.

(01-02-2017, 03:35 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yeah, decorum precedent usually means you don't outright accuse the POTUS of lying.  Trump has been tearing that down, though, so maybe all bets are off.

To me the bigger story is the Obama admin and liberal media trying to tear down and de-legitmize conservative media, and Trump appearing to put that on steroids and more or less establish state-run propaganda.  Always bothered me when Obama would call out Fox News, and now Trump is basically saying "if you criticize me, then I'll just cut you off".

Fortunately, this could be a positive to waking up ALL media

(01-02-2017, 09:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That was a lot of the discussion this weekend on Meet the Press. Essentially, what does the media need to do to regain that credibility and do their jobs effectively. I had never watched the show before, but it was very interesting and I got sucked in.

As to the OP, I am mixed. If a false statement is made, I think it should be labeled as false. I get the whole idea of calling it a lie being seen as a judgment rather than an objective statement. I said Sean Spicer lied this morning because he should have known better, and if he didn't then that us shameful, but not every false statement is necessarily done purposefully or with extreme negligence.

(01-02-2017, 03:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: “I’d be careful about using the word ‘lie.’ ‘Lie’ implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.”


I see nothing wrong with this statement, and that is coming from someone who believes Donald Trump is completely unqualified and proven to be too incompetent for the role he is about to assume.

(01-02-2017, 04:50 PM)Benton Wrote: Agreed.

Really, in journalism, the only time they should be using the word is if it's deliberate (which is often hard to prove) or willfully negligent. In print, occasionally copy editors or headline writers will try to chop a headline down and toss lie in there, but they shouldn't.

I agree with all of these statements.  When media that wishes to be considered trustworthy gatekeepers of information to the people, begins to add opinion and lead the reader to think one direction or the other, they lose that credibility to be trusted in delivering the news.

[Benton]

(01-02-2017, 05:18 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I agree with all of these statements.  When media that wishes to be considered trustworthy gatekeepers of information to the people, begins to add opinion and lead the reader to think one direction or the other, they lose that credibility to be trusted in delivering the news.

I think a lot of the criticism (and deservedly so) in maintstream media comes from editorializing things, mainly with television and radio. MSNBC and Fox get lumped into as media gone to the extreme, but their actual news isn't that bad. Fox News and MSNBC do pretty decent jobs covering stories (mostly because the news is coming from reporters who are doing the work, they just aren't doing the smiling on television or have the voice for radio). But both of them don't define the lines well enough with commentators.

It used to be each network had a personality or two that was ultra conservative or ultra liberal and they just talked out their ass to fill an hour, appealing to a specific market. Then both those networks got more of those commentators. Then they let the commentary spill over into the news reporting. So the story is still clean and factual, but the they let the personalities make their own personal statement after.

Granted, I'm biased to print, but one thing I like about it is there isn't that blur. There's commentary sections labeled as commentary and news labeled as news and you don't find one in the other.  Television and radio aren't making that distinction.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-02-2017, 08:01 PM)Benton Wrote: I think a lot of the criticism (and deservedly so) in maintstream media comes from editorializing things, mainly with television and radio. MSNBC and Fox get lumped into as media gone to the extreme, but their actual news isn't that bad. Fox News and MSNBC do pretty decent jobs covering stories (mostly because the news is coming from reporters who are doing the work, they just aren't doing the smiling on television or have the voice for radio). But both of them don't define the lines well enough with commentators.

It used to be each network had a personality or two that was ultra conservative or ultra liberal and they just talked out their ass to fill an hour, appealing to a specific market. Then both those networks got more of those commentators. Then they let the commentary spill over into the news reporting. So the story is still clean and factual, but the they let the personalities make their own personal statement after.

Granted, I'm biased to print, but one thing I like about it is there isn't that blur. There's commentary sections labeled as commentary and news labeled as news and you don't find one in the other.  Television and radio aren't making that distinction.

I am biased to print, as well.  For pretty much the same reasons that you stated. 

With that in mind, what would make it alright for print media to put the word "lies" in a headline of a news story?  It's not like it was the results of a court finding, just showing bias against a particular person.  Is that acceptable, in your eyes?  (I know that it isn't, from reading enough of your postings)  I'm just saying, even the print needs to keep the editorial to the oped section.

[Benton]

(01-02-2017, 09:02 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I am biased to print, as well.  For pretty much the same reasons that you stated. 

With that in mind, what would make it alright for print media to put the word "lies" in a headline of a news story?  It's not like it was the results of a court finding, just showing bias against a particular person.  Is that acceptable, in your eyes?  (I know that it isn't, from reading enough of your postings)  I'm just saying, even the print needs to keep the editorial to the oped section.

One that comes to mind is JFK who said publicly in March 1961 that the US was not planning "military intervention" in Cuba.... which was followed a couple weeks later by a CIA-led invasion of Cuba. He had known since January of the planned attack.

On the other hand, I wouldn't say Clinton's "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" would be acceptable given that — according to Clinton — his interpretation of the definition presented was that since he was the receiver and not the doer, he wasn't having sex. Was he dishonest? Oh heck yeah. But he was technically not lying.

And I don't think a lot of what Trump says are lies. I think he's woefully ignorant, but not willfully. Like the Carrier jobs. I think he thought tax incentives would save jobs... he just didn't realize Carrier just planned on using the money to automate and get rid of the jobs "saved." And that's what a lot of lawmakers don't realize. You can toss tax incentives at a company, it doesn't mean they're going to spend it on people. Often, they spend it on ways to get rid of people.