In his September 15, “Press Watch” newsletter, Dan Froomkin writes:
The discourse about political journalism is once again afire with debate over whether the now-ubiquitous Republican allegations of election rigging and election fraud should be called “lies” or not in news stories.
Of course they should. It’s ridiculous that we’re even talking about it.
The distinction between a “false” or “baseless” statement and a lie is that a lie is uttered or spread knowingly, intentionally, and to serve a purpose. These lies undeniably qualify.
Froomkin also writes:
But simply calling out a lie isn’t enough. Yes, it’s better than using a euphemism. But it’s still a disservice to the public if you don’t explain its purpose — if you don’t explain the motive.
And in the case of the Republican lies about elections, the motive is crystal clear: They are trying to subvert democracy. That’s not hyperbole. They are literally preparing to manipulate and, if necessary, disregard the voting process if they don’t win.
Calling blatantly fraudulent allegations about elections “baseless claims” or even “lies” is not nearly enough. They are calculated, democracy-killing lies. And that needs to be made very clear in every story about them — or journalists are not really telling their viewers and readers what they need to know.
Another thing to keep in mind: The best lies are often part of a compelling, if fictional, narrative. To effectively expose and rebut those lies, journalists need to tell the full, true story, which includes who is spreading the lie and what they are hoping that will achieve.
Most of our major newsrooms finally found the fortitude to call Trump’s assertion that he won the presidential election in 2020 the “Big Lie.” But they’ve backslid since then, describing littler lies claiming election rigging and fraud – most recently from Republicans in California — as “false claims” or “baseless allegations”.
Froomkin makes his point clear — call a lie a lie. However, even though words matter, and identifying lies for what they are is not enough. The more important issue is: should the lies about election fraud be covered at all?
It strikes me that publishing stories about election-fraud lies is a form of bothsidism. Bothsidism was most prevalent in climate change coverage in which a story would cover glaciers melting and then, in a ridiculous attempt at “balance,” would include a statement by a wingnut climate change denier. Climate change is not a controversial issue. We don’t need to know about the non-scientific, stupid opinions of deniers.
We also don’t need to know the stupid opinions of election fraud promoters. The press (legitimate news media) shouldn’t give these lies any oxygen. Cut them off. Don’t cover them.
