Word Masters

   "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose to mean -- neither more nor less."
   "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
   "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.

   Journalists have an obligation to report truthfully, not only what someone says and the context in which it is said, but also whether a statement is actually true. However, to cover their zeal in reporting what is said, and to forestall accusations of biased reporting, journalists resort to softer terms when a politician says something that is demonstrably untrue, or not conforming to fact or reality. In other words, is the politician, office holder or other public official lying? Journalists have an unwritten rule that restrains them  from saying so. Instead, they use terms like these:
   Conflating events. Rewarded for making provocative statements. Playing fast and loose with the facts. Distorts the truth. Speaks erroneously. Demonstrably untrue.  Factually inaccurate Disingenuous. False statement . Fabricated. Misrepresented. Questionable veracity. Misleading. Doesn't ring true. Refuses to admit a mistake.
   And unless they're writing an opinion piece, reporters don't even use those terms themselves. Instead, they find others to interview, and quote other sources in opposition to the questionable comments. This way, they can claim the shelter of "balanced reporting."
   This may be a good thing, however, since readers and TV viewers expect news reports to be unbiased. Or they should.
   It's amusing, however, to watch those caught perpetrating untruths (read: lying) attacking journalists as being biased. Rather than admit they were mistaken at best or flat-out lying at worst, they go on the attack, calling media reports scurrilous, biased, prejudiced, or a few other labels that satisfy their supporters but do nothing to clarify or modify their claims.
   The irony is that those caught in the most flagrant of tall tales use that same media to attack their media critics. And the print and TV journalists dutifully report those attacks, even as they are themselves the targets.
   Fortunately, journalists have thicker skins than politicians.
   What they can do, however, is to continue reporting just what the candidate says, and when the politician insists, "I was misquoted," television can simply replay the video. And print media can collect all the times the person spoke an untruth, either from ignorance or deliberate misfeasance or malfeasance, along with documentation showing how and why the speaker was wrong.
   And when the speaker cries yet again of being a victim of biased reporting, the media can report that, too, along with further evidence damaging to the speaker's cause.
   Meanwhile, a candidate may be expert in one field, but that expertise does not automatically extend to expertise in every field. Or, as a reporter friend once said, "I made a deal with my auto mechanic. I don't fix cars, and he doesn't write news stories."