I'm more interested in journalists clearly labeling Trump's lies as strategic: "As Rudy has admitted, they plan to brand totally normal investigative techniques as spygate to achieve a political end," ...than to name individual lies as such on Twitter.
-
-
Not sure I understand why in journalism state of mind for purposes of lying is seen as difficult to prove. Law does it everyday: has person x lied in the past? Yes. Has person x done it repeatedly? Then person x is presumed at best to have no credibility or at worst a liar.
-
Judges establish this after a lengthy adversarial process governed by rules (eg. guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). I think this is a clear eg. of a shibboleth -- like minds signaling that they're on the same side. And here I think it works against your purpose, actually, because
-
this just feeds the pro-Trump narrative that the media makes all sorts of subjective leaps in their reporting. Appreciate how everyone is frustrated, and people go after the targets they can, but the distinction between "lie" and "falsehood" is trivial.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.