Read this, because the distinctions that it draws are important and well put:
"There's a very big difference between making honest mistakes and purposefully misleading the American people.... You cannot say that it's an honest mistake when you're purposefully putting out information that you know to be false, or when you're taking information that hasn't been validated, that hasn't been offered any credibility, and that has been continually denied by a number of people, including people with direct knowledge."
Now consider the fact that the president of the United States, using his official Twitter account, recently sent out a series of videos that had been posted initially by a British anti-Muslim hate group. The videos were highly inflammatory and in some cases totally false. For example, one video purportedly showing a Muslim immigrant beating up a Dutch boy on crutches was in fact a video of two Dutch boys in a fight, neither one a Muslim or an immigrant.
That didn't matter to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, who advised Americans not to get caught up in the actual truth or falsehood of the videos. "Whether it's a real video, the threat is real," as she explained it, that "threat" being the danger posed by Muslim immigration.
Compare that approach to the lecture that I've quoted above. It argues -- I believe correctly -- that it is not an honest mistake to put out information that you know to be false, or that hasn't been validated. It further argues that the purpose of those who spread such lies is to mislead, to take others down a path that leads away from truth to something darker.
The problem, of course, is that the lecture on truth quoted above was delivered from the podium of the White House press office on Monday, by the same Sarah Sanders who had earlier explained that if you're fixated on the actual truth of a statement, you're in danger of missing the point. Good Sarah and Bad Sarah, so to speak.
I can't say I have sympathy for Bad Sarah, but I do recognize her dilemma. She is a self-described Christian who has offered her services to a man who is by far the greatest liar to ever serve as president, and who ranks with the greatest liars the world has known this side of Satan himself. What the Bible says of the devil -- "When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies" -- can certainly be said of Trump as well.
It is not just the number of lies that Trump tells, although that too is impressive. (Through mid-November, the Washington Post had documented 1,628 false or misleading public statements by Trump as president.) What sets Trump apart from all would-be competitors is the sheer audacity of those lies. You know the greatest hits by now: Ted Cruz's dad helped kill JFK; Trump sent investigators to Hawaii "and they cannot believe what they’re finding" about Barack Obama's real birthplace;" "My accountant called me and said 'you're going to get killed'" by GOP tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations. Things like that.
This is of course a moral question, but it is more than that, because most morality has a basis in practicality. We have rules against things such as lying, cheating and coveting another person's spouse not just because those things are wrong in the theoretical sense, but because they erode the common trust that makes human society possible. That basis in practicality is particularly strong in the case against lying, of pretending that "facts" are as good as facts and that truth is what we wish it to be.
One more point: The Sanders lecture quoted above was of course directed at the news media, because prominent outlets have recently committed a series of high-profile errors. I think it's not only fair to ask, but necessary to ask, whether the perceived need for speed in electronic journalism and the temptations of social media have eroded some of the bedrock on which journalistic credibility has been founded. Every honest journalist and every honest journalism outlet should be taking this moment to think about the tradeoffs at work here, and to recommit to getting it right the first time.
However, it is also true that intent matters. The media mistakes in question were uncovered in a matter of hours if not minutes, and were quickly corrected to set the record straight. In one case, the offending journalist was suspended without pay for four weeks, and I haven't seen anyone in the business argue that the punishment was unfair or undeserved.
On the other hand, the Trump administration has yet to retract, apologize for or even remove the anti-Muslim videos from Trump's Twitter feed. As Bad Sarah might put it, they're sticking with the "larger truth" approach, and that's a problem. The path that leads us to larger truths cannot be paved with lies, but only with smaller truths. A path that is paved with lies leads you only to bigger lies, and conclusions and policies based on wishful or convenient "facts" rather than facts can in the long run lead only to disaster.
Look around you, and see if that isn't true.
About the Author
