The First Amendment Is Not a License to Lie
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Surely, every one knows that the above is the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that lying is protected by the amendment. Right? Wrong. If lying is protected, why are so many people accused of perjury? And lying to a law officer is a crime.
Unfortunately, too many people in the communications business -- our business -- feel that the amendment gives them the right to lie.
As a result:
In our business -- the communications business – lying is endemic.
Business executives have a long history of issuing or having their PR people disseminate misleading information.
Advertising agencies through the decades seemingly think that producing outright falsehoods that either lie or misleads consumer equates to good work.
Promises by politicians are not to be taken seriously. Like promises by business execs to their workers, they’re mostly lies.
There is also what I call “honest lies.’ These are lies told by individuals who truly think what they are saying is true. These people get their “facts” from PR statements, opinion columnists, TV and radio pundits, faulty news reporting and believing straight out lies spread by individuals they admire and believe to be truthful.
But then there are individuals who are deliberately liars, which brings me to President Trump. The president and his spokespeople lie so frequently that it’s debatable whether it’s good journalism to repeat his lies, given the fact that by doing so many people will think the president’s lies are the truth.
Shortly after the opening of impeachment hearings during the president’s first term, MSNBC decided not to help Trump speared his lies by cutting away from a speech. he was giving.
“We hate to do this, really,” anchor Nicolle Wallace said. “But the president isn’t telling the truth.” The effect was fact checking the president as he was speaking, unlike the other networks that carried the president remarks live and didn’t comment on his mistruths until he was finished.
It’s been known for some time that the president and his spokespeople lie to the media. Corey Lewandowski, the former campaign manager and staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, actually told the truth when he testified under oath saying, “I have no obligation to be honest” with the press.
Networks that continually give air time to Trump spokespeople who deliberately state untruths claim that they fact check the remarks and point out their inaccuracies. Really? That’s news to me. Nevertheless, by providing a platform for the lies many viewers might believe them.
Is calling out lies sufficient? Not in my opinion. Deliberately permitting an individual to spread untruths is not good journalism. Journalism is supposed to be about truth telling. But the cable shows continually book known liars because they think it provides good television. That’s the problem. Good television does not equate to good journalism.
We are now in the early stages of President Trump 2.0. What the president and his spokespeople are saying is not what is known in the PR trade as spin – where individuals on opposite sides of an issue give different viewpoints of happenings, but do not make up “facts.’
Spinning while bad enough, is not telling outright lies as the president and his spokespeople do.
Some political shows had barred Kellyanne Conway, the presidential advisor from Trump 1.0, from appearing on their programs because of her constant lying. “W have alternative facts,” she famously said. Other shows allow Trump spokespeople to say anything, citing the first amendment.
My question to hosts and producers of those shows is, “Just because the second amendment gives individuals the right to carry a gun, does it also mean that person has the right to kill someone?”
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of President Trump’s far right proponents would answer “yes.”
