Saturday 9 November 2024

Lying Politicians

Once our politicians would 'spin' the truth which is to give a  biased interpretation of an event to influence public opinion such as Tony Blair and his Iraq misadventure but now we have politicians who just tell blatant lies and where we had Boris Johnson who was sacked for it, Donald Trump is in a class of his own.   
According to the Washington Post, he made 30,573 false or misleading claims in his four years as president, an average of an incredible 21 lies per day and while some were trivial and self-promotional, it was his more shocking and dangerous lies which he is remembered for such as  the one about the 2020 presidential election being stolen contrary to the facts.
The lies do have serious consequences for the nation and public trust in Government, around 50% of Republicans believe it regardless of the contrary evidence.
Politicians who lie can gain a strategic advantage by embellishing the truth or even constructing a new reality for their audience and Psychology Today found that some personality types get significant pleasure from telling blatant lies , those with little empathy, such as narcissists and psychopaths. They don’t care about the consequences for anyone else, it’s all about making themselves feel good and not feeling any guilt, shame or sadness at telling a blatant lie.
It was political philosopher Nicolo Machiavelli who, in 1532, wrote that Princes should know how to lie or in his words: 'circumvent the intellect of men' but it was Adolf HItler who came up with the idea of the 'Big Lie' in his book Mein Kampf which is to tell such a colossal a lie because people would not believe that 'someone would not have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously'.
Trump used the big lie technique in his denial of the 2020 election result and recently in his ludicrous assertion that immigrants are eating the dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio and it is an undeniable fact that Politicians lie, some have catastrophic consequences like Tony Blair's and George W Bush's and Hitler's which ended up with millions of deaths and journalists have an important duty to call out politicians when they tell lies.
The American Press and broadcast media doesn't have a great reputation, many being just as capable of lying as the politicians but broadcast journalism, in the UK anyway, is regulated tighter and held to a higher standard and stand between the politicians lies and the viewer.
Donald Trump makes much of branding media outlets who don't pander to his lies as fake news but that is because they expose his falsehoods and don't just accept them at face value and it is expected that during his second term he will water down the freedom of Journalists to hold him to account which is a dangerous move without them, how will viewers know that politicians are lying?
You couldn't make it up, or rather if Trump gets his way, he can and then stops the media reporting it. 

10 comments:

Not really a blog said...

Using the childish definition of "lie" that is pushed by the press/journalists, Trump lied every day. So did Harris. So did Obama. So did W. So did Clinton. Every statement they make/made is/was intentionally passive to mislead someone. Every statement.

but, there is no bigger liar than a professional journalist. biased, manipulative journalists decided that when conservatives use passive language it is a lie.

When a statement is wrong it can be one of four types: An error, an opinion , a lie, or a deception:

> Wrong is when the W said Iraq had WMDs - he was misinformed by the CIA (read "Playing to the Edge" where CIA Director Hayden admits he misinformed W), which was misinformed by the German BND.

> Opinion is when someone looks at data and events and draws a conclusion. Trump's opinion is that he was cheated in 2020. Biden's opinion is that US inflation for 4 years was caused by "corporate greed".

> Lie (aka disinformation) is when someone intentionally shares wrongful data to protect themselves. Bill Clinton lied when he said "he did not have sex with that woman" to protect his own ass.

> a deception is when someone intentionally communicates wrongful data to protect someone else... Reagan lied about trading arms with the Contras to protect the hostages.

Journalists and the press use the word "lie" passively to attack the right and to defend or justify the left. it is akin to creating a useless definition the the un definition of "genocide".

PS - the first thing i do when reading your blog is look to see if comments are allowed. if an article does not allow comments, i don't read the article. not even the title. talking to yourself.

PSS - the legacy press in the US (printed or broadcast including LA Times, WaPo, NYT, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc.) is dead because the legacy press and its professional journalists lied to often to cause harm to the right, while at the same time to defend, substantiate, augment, and lift up the left.

journalists have less credibility in the US than politicians and that is a sad state for a professional...

Anonymous said...

Talking to myself? You really think I do this just for you and the posts are not here in order to go elsewhere? Wow, how delusional? Lucky for you it’s only the posts and not the comments.

Political spin is one thing, blatant lies are another. Used to be politicians resigned or were removed from power if caught outright lying, now they seem able to just do it with little consequence so doesn’t that concern you?

Not really a blog said...

does it concern me? of course it does. what can i do that is impactful other than vote?

we are in this condition, where leaders get away with lying, because of the press and journalists.

> we were told that clinton's sexual misconduct and his lies were okay because his personal life has nothing to do with qualification for office... but Trump's is different... not

> when Pelosi and other left/democrat leaders become multi-millionaires nobody blinks, when Trump or any other republican is rich they are evil...

> the department of justice, FBI, and CIA say hunter's laptop was a fake, a russian set up. the press yawns...

> we now know the press hid JFKs miscounduct, and LBJ's, and FDR's, then there is what the press hid about J Edgar Hoover. but Trump needs to be exposed... and so do all justices nominated by republicans... come on... the stupidest person knows manipulation when they see it...

> anybody that believes the press and journalists are fair or honest must be an idiot. the press and journalists in all spaces have proven to be biased and manipulative at best, and straight up liars at worst.

> we now know that the print and broadcast media cannot be trusted, they pick topics, data, and quotes based on serving their customers - exactly like the "greedy, abusive, power hungry" corporations that they attack on a daily basis... Exxon is bad. WalMart is bad. Ford is bad. Microsoft is bad. But, the big corporations like ABC, NBC, NYT, LA Times, WaPo, etc. making billions, well they are different... bullshit

yeah, we have a problem and the solution begins with journalists looking in the mirror and asking themselves if they are 100% completely honest in every article and in every sentence, meaning they doubt all scientists, all politicians, all facts, the selection of facts, the omission of facts, etc.

a journalist that is 100% honest will be the strongest reader/listener/watcher magnet that ever existed, and that will begin the change in how we judge our leaders.

you and your peers broke it, but you can fix. if you have the character and balls to do it...

Anonymous said...

Nope, didn’t break anything because if I did Ofcom would make sure I wasn’t in a position to do it again. When I suggested an equivalent to you, you didn’t like it so can’t have it both ways, either an unregulated American media that can say anything or regulate it and make it fairer.

Not really a blog said...

i prefer unregulated - zero hesitation.

i never advocated for regulation. that is how leftists think... the idea that the government will fix it is a childish joke. caveat emptor...

i advocate for journalists to be honest - asking a lot i know... especially since so many, including you, seem to think it is your obligation to be an advocate for one position or another, instead of being a purveyor of complete and accurate facts.

you seem to see journalism as some kind of sham where journalists are given credibility and esteem because they are considered to have unique insights into reality while they subversively twist and bend the truth for their own purposes.

as i wrote above, a journalist that is honest and is factually complete (not just completely factual) would draw a huge audience.

this, factually complete writing can be achieved. the bulk of classes i took in my national intelligence graduate certificate focused on writing with the absence of passive language, and exposure of all assumptions and personal biases. it was okay to use biases, but the biases must be exposed.

for example, i'm a bitter leftist so what i'm about to say about trump cannot be trusted to be true...


Falling on a bruise said...

i (sic) prefer unregulated - zero hesitation. Stop your moaning about it then.

Not really a blog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Not really a blog said...

government regulation is not the answer to everything. you are such a leftist. something is broken, give the government more power...

there is another way: moan about it in a public setting, so entrepreneurs can see the opportunity, then develop an alternative, then get out of their way so they can implement alternatives.

of course, the people being displaced (in this case corrupt and abusive journalists) want to implement government regulations (more government employees, more cost for the people) to stop the erosion of their dominance, at the expense of the tax payers.

Meanwhile, the people losing their power due to their corruption try to convince people that additional regulation is good for the people (yeah, the corrupt journalists specifically).

Sadly, this works because the corruption comes in the form of the journalists enabling one political group over other political groups (favoritism). When the favored group is in power they enable their assets (corrupt journalists) by eliminating the competition via government regulation (corrupt government).

The democrats/left tried it in the US but it failed (without the help of the ACLU which claims to be protecting our rights). Of course, it took hold in the uk which has a long history of tyrannical rule - yawl seem to like being lorded over...

Not really a blog said...

since there is no edit function and you divert into grammar and spelling when you are faced with compelling data and logic, i had to delete this comment, make corrections and republish

Falling on a bruise said...

You really are more all over the place on this than you usually are on matters. It really isn't that difficult, you either regulate the media and make them fair and balanced or you allow them to carry on saying whatever they want to say.
Obviously you prefer them to be lying to you and then whinge about it rather than put something in place that would make them be more honest but then right wing logic, i'm sure it makes sense to you somehow but watch your back turning all those somersaults.