Columnist Jim Slusher: Truth, untruth, lies, belief and balance

Probably since before Charles Pinckney took five years off his actual age so he could be seen as the youngest member of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, an inclination to lie has been considered an assumed attribute of politicians. When I was taught in the third grade that George Washington told his father, "I cannot tell a lie; I chopped down the cherry tree," my teacher emphasized that the story was important because lying was so common among political leaders that this episode demonstrated a congenital difference in the moral makeup of our first president compared to all other politicians.

So, it's no surprise that distrust is sewn into the fabric of our attitudes toward government. And, that's probably a good thing. Experience teaches us all too well the painful consequences of naively accepting the word of any would-be leaders about what they will do or why they will do it, especially those who must curry votes in order to get and keep their job.

Even so, there is something troubling to me about the way the word lie is wielded and thrust about in public discourse these days. Of course, blatant lies need to be identified for what they are, and of course, the serial lies of a George Santos need to be publicized and condemned. But in so much political discussion online and in print today, there is a tone of challenge - as if there is some implicit competition going on in which conferring the titles of Worst Liar or Also A Liar on someone vindicates everyone else. Paradoxically, there is simultaneously that presumption, as Santos himself stated, that "everyone does it" so what's the big deal?

The latter point is one we can trace to Pinckney and Washington's day, and it's one we citizens must wrestle with constantly. How do we respect our leaders if we matter-of-factly assume they can't be trusted?

The former is even more complex, and, in my view, even more challenging for the press. I trace it to internal arguments over the past half dozen or more years among journalists generally about how to report objectively on statements made by candidate and later President Donald Trump when they were demonstrably untrue. Many critics of the news media began to condemn what has become known as "both sidesism" for giving untruth equal weight to truth and demanded that outright lies be identified as such. That led to much more common use of the word lie, the eventual Washington Post catalog of Trump "lies" (with no similar catalog for any other politician) and ultimately a now-common lack of clarity over exactly what a lie is.

There is, for instance, no reliable evidence anywhere of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, despite vast and herculean efforts to uncover it. Yet, many people, the former president foremost among them, insist it occurred. Is saying so a lie? Or is it simply ignorance? Or simply evidence of distrust so deep-seated that the only "truth" the holders will accept is the one that coincides with their prejudice?

In my mind, the answer to that question depends on the individual. Some people know what the lack of evidence says but see political capital in promoting an untruth they know will attract supporters. Some lazy thinkers just repeat what people with whom they feel aligned say. Some people sincerely believe so deeply in the competence of a conspiracy that they simply will not be persuaded it does not exist.

It is relevant to note that for all these ironically named true believers, the people who insist on referring to the evidence are the "liars."

I raise all this because it's a topic that has weighed on us in the press and on my own thinking. I personally believe that some reports have become too free with the term lie, though I also believe that Daily Herald copy editors and writers are conscientious about its use. I also agree with those critics who contend that an overcommitment to "balance" can give the impression that things that are demonstrably not true carry equal weight with things that are unquestionably true, and the effort to bring them into a false equilibrium can serve to promote inaccuracy.

Ironically, almost no one today believes young George Washington did in fact chop down a cherry tree and admit to it rather than lie. Yet, we're all still able to respect his reputation for integrity. So, in our own time, there surely is an appropriate balance point somewhere in the assessment of politicians and lies. It is clear to me no one has found it yet. But in our reading, writing and talking, let's at least keep looking.

jslusher@dailyherald.com