I'm not sure I need to add much to this:
Just suppose the BBC cut off politicians every time they told blatant lies. Most of the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister, would never be seen again.
— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) November 6, 2020
Except that is to say I am utterly bored of UK interviewers not challenging blatant lies from ministers, in particular.
Much of the US broadcast media cut off Trump for lying yesterday. They were right to do so. But we should now consider how all politicians should be held to account for their lies. Democracy depends on this happening.
And Johnson is consummate at it. As Rory Stewart wrote in the Times Literary Supplement yesterday:
Johnson is after all the most accomplished liar in public life — perhaps the best liar ever to serve as prime minister. Some of this may have been a natural talent — but a lifetime of practice and study has allowed him to uncover new possibilities which go well beyond all the classifications of dishonesty attempted by classical theorists like St Augustine. He has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation and flat denial. He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and the half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie, and the bullshit lie — which may inadvertently be true. And because he has been so famous for this skill for so long, he can use his reputation to ascend to new levels of playful paradox.
And yes, I am arguing that he should not get a platform for such lies. Then we might get honest politicians again. The cancer of political lying has to stop. And then, of course, every liar could have a platform again - so long as they told the truth. I am not opposed to opinion I disagree with being offered. Far from it: I will always demand that this be allowed. But lies destroy trust. And they have to end.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It’s not Boris’ fault ,that’s just how he is. An “affable” liar without conscience, who thinks the ends justify the means.
So blame the Tories who voted him as leader knowing he was a liar and a scoundrel. They turned a blind eye in their panic and went for a man purely on the basis that they thought could defeat Nigel Farage. They were right on that, but the cost was that it lumbered us with a lying scoundrel of a PM.
I couldn’t agree more.
And tonight on Any Answers, Radio 4 – Richard Tice (well they probably couldn’t get Stanley Johnson..)
I think broadcasters are beginning to become aware that whenever they platform a person who represents a very unsubstantiated view they give credence to that view on a 50/50 basis to the truth. This makes the lie equivalent to the truth.
Where is Robin Day when you need him?
You forget to mention that the Labour party, Liberal Democrats and the SNP wouldn’t be seen again either.
They would be in need of much less reform, IMO
Why? They’ve all been caught lying.
If you think that politicians should be held to account for their lies and shouldn’t get a platform to do so, shouldn’t that apply equally?
Shouldn’t it also apply to journalists as well, as so many of them are highly political? Or every political commentator?
And who is going to be the arbiter of the truth and make the decisions on who is going to be allowed to speak freely and who will be censored?
I am saying it should apply equally
I am just saying some are bigger liars than others right now
From your twitter post it doesn’t sound like you would apply things equally. You are also saying “And yes, I am arguing that he should not get a platform for such lies.”
So who would decide what is a lie and what isn’t? I’m guessing from what you have said you haven’t read 1984.
I have read 1984
A lie would be a blatant untruth
Like Johnson delivers all the time
You aren’t answering the main point. Who would be the arbiter of what is a blatant untruth?
Broadcasters could very easily assemble a fact check panel
They are experienced at this
So straight out of 1984 then.
What if the members of that fact check panel are biased? Then we get to hear the truth only according to them?
Plenty of journalists, broadcasters and commentators are biased, and many of them have told lies themselves. Are you seriously suggesting we allow freedom of speech to be subordinated?
It’s a basic human right.
No, I’m saying abuse is not in any way related to freedom
And you will now find I am exercising my freedom to block your crass comments
Is this some pathetic attempt to defend Johnson and his government from a right winger? Or are you just really stupid? None of the parties mentioned are perfect, but to try and make some false equivalence between them and Johnson’s government is absurd.
Well put Rory…
The BBC has basically abandoned any pretence of getting to the truth – about what would be best in the pandemic. They are far more excited about giving the Tories endless space to be their own opposition, — platform time to the rabid fringe against the lockdown (44 out of 400-odd MP’s) – yet never mention the work of Independent Sage – or simply ask these Trump-type spouters how East Asian Countries have managed without the permanent semi lockdowns they claim we are doomed to unless we let everyone die of the virus now.
Dido Harding & Co. literally getting away with murder with a £10bn contract for not tracing contacts. Beats any Mafia job
If that had been done earlier where would we be.
See this.
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2019/12/20/the-2019-election-was-won-on-the-back-of-lies-and-facebook-helped/
I agree with that claim
Hallelujah. If only. How do we make it happen?
If you mean the lying bullshit I had to put up with from the Right on Radio 4 morning about Sunaks’s latest offering getting Tory newspapers and MPs worrying about debt.
I’m tired of our media not questioning these tropes.
I agree Richard. Liars and fantasists have had far too much airtime down the years in the UK. Brexit showed that. The lies and nonsense spouted by the Brexiters up to and past the referendum, which were not challenged on air were disgraceful.
If the US media can cut Trump off for lying the same should happen here. You’re quite right that Johnson and most of the Cabinet (all?) would never be heard on the airwaves again. Instead of them not being heard because of their childish boycott of Today, C4 etc. BTW, that seems to have been quietly dropped in the last few months, doersn’t it?
The trouble is that in Britain at least, so much of the press is only too happy to lie in support of the government, if that government is a right wing Conservative government. This government is not only brazenly dishonest, it is, as you’ve pointed out, corrupt. The awarding of huge PPE contracts to firms run by Tory party donors and acquaintances and the appointment of the wives of Tory politicians to roles such as head of the UK Vaccine taskforce (Bingham) or head of Track and Trace (Harding) despite their lack of any qualifications to do the job are prime examples.
Alastair Campbell has an excellent article on this is this week’s The New European. Imagine if a Labour government had behaved the way this one has done? As he points out, it would be in the news for days. But here, most of our so-called free press says nothing.
C4 is still boycotted as is GMB
They are frightened of being called out as liars
It would be good if Toady (not a typo), C4 and GMB took an even tougher line than they are now. After every news report on a topic for which you would normally expect a response from government, state that the government were not willing to attempt to defend their record and so, presumably, couldn’t do so.
A bit more confrontational than the current, “we asked for a interview, but couldn’t get one” approach, but necessary. The millions of viewers/listeners really need to be under no illusion that this failure to take responsibility is acceptable.
I remember in the 1974 election when a politician was asked how he would pay for his plans his answer was “We can’t afford not to afford it”- which is a good way of dodging the question.!
The more comfortable we are, the more excepting of lies we become?
It’s deliberate of course that’s a given, as you say total rot in the heart of the executive.
Might be worth a look at BBC documentary Adam Curtis’s “Hyper Normalisation” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS_c2qqA-6Y
Cynic Alert. Panic until December and blame the sh*t storm that is Brexit con COVID19
M
And then there is the stifling of free speech in the Labour Party, where an increasingly Stalinist bureaucracy undermines supposedly fundamental values.
I never thought I would see the day when words like that were appropriate, but they definitely are now.
I’m sorry – but that is crass
I do not greatly agree with Starmer but I knew Milne, and he was the Stalinist, and responsible for many of Corbyn’s problems
So please don’t talk nonsense as I will call it out
Fortunately for me, I appreciate your no-nonsense approach, and admit that I probably chose the wrong word.
However, in the case of the current Labour Party, I do not think that the way the leadership seem to resort to preventing discussion, never mind debate, does not auger well for future developments.
In current circumstances, in the words of Ronnie Corbett, ” I know my place!”
I might happy to agree broad mindedness is required
But they’re not Stalinist
In my view what could change some of the lying is if it was called out in Parliament.
I suggest it would be an improvement if the Speaker called back Johnson to apologise to the House when he tells lies. But I’ve tried to suggest this to my (Labour) MP and amazingly, no joy.
He clearly has a death wish. Because without it confidence in our (alleged) democracy dies.
If Johnson was called back to apologise and give the correct answer every time he was found to have lied or mislead, we would start at least, to restore some faith and confidence in our very rickety democracy and the Parliamentary process.
I agree Peter
Good idea
The Opposition should do it too
In words other than ‘scum’
Trump lacks an adult relationship to truth (on R4 last evening) , a useful “liar!” avoiding term. I hope the opposition were listening then and reading this article as we all need to stem the lazy cynicism about all politics and all politicians.
Much as I would like the media to call out lying politicians, this is not going to happen when the same media ( newspapers & magazines in particular) cheerlead their chosen MPs. But the House of Commons is somewhere where changes could – and should- be made. I have long argued that the Speaker ( and his deputies) should enforce minister firstly provide real answers to questions put: turning things around by asking a question of the questioner to evade answering the question should immediately be ruled out of order; so should blatant evasion of a question; the Speaker should intervene with something like: “The minister is well aware that is not an answer to the question. I will give him/ her a second chance”; in time ministers will get the message that evasion and lies from the despatch box is not going to be acceptable, and will amend their ways. It requires an initial determination by the Speaker to intervene at every juncture when ministers transgress, with no slippage
I agree – a good place to start
A welcome suggestion
Imagine a world in which politicians weren’t allowed to lie to citizens.
They’d have to stop lying to themselves first.
They’d have to study reality, face it, and learn how to deal with it, how to compromise.
They’d have to learn to explain situations clearly and calmly to people.
And people would have to be weaned off dreams and fantasies.
They’d have to face reality.
They’d have to make the effort to understand it without filters, and accept to compromise.
A cultural revolution.
Indeed
Sorry Richard, I have to disagree with you on this.
No platforming just feeds the conspiracy theorists and creates free-speech martyrs. I can hear the screams already “They don’t want you to know the truth” “What are they afraid we’ll tell you” blah blah blah. Better to let them spout their lies and expose them.
Apart from the fundamental problem of lying politicians, the problem we have is the lies are not being robustly challenged.
Televised press conference – everytime they lie flash up the word LIE in big letters on the screen
TV interview or Question Time or some such – everytime they lie the interviewer/moderator should interrupt and say “That’s a lie”
Social media – the social media companies have shown they have the ability to mark posts/tweets whatever with a label stating it is misinformation – every tweet from President Trump for the last 4 days has been marked as such
Whilst no platforming is tempting it just creates martyrs. The best answer is more free speech and the exposing of the lies.
I have suggested that the lies get no platform – that they are called out if they try to offer them
I am not saying they should be told they cannot put forward views – at all. I have said they cannot use lies to support them. That is quite different
Hmmm, liars vetting liars. That’s not going to work.
Our system is based on people choosing whose lies to believe. People preferred Boris’s lies because he was good at it. They preferred the media lies about JC. The question is what makes people choose to believe the lies they do.
For instance the Information Commissioners Office has had a big team of investigators working on the Cambridge Analytica/Russia fixed Brexit claims for 3 years. A claim favoured by many here. Result published in the last month, no evidence of manipulation. Media coverage zilch. Lies of omission, just as well important as lies of commission.
I am sorry – but I have more faith than that
I am surprised at your level of faith when you have repeatedly exposed the lies from the BoE, the government and media led by the BBC in misleading the population about the way the nations money works and in particular the spurious claims that austerity politics are crucial to “balance the nations book”. I had formed the impression you believed these claims are mendacious rather than stupidity.
I have more of that exposure to do yet
But I believe (dammit, tonight I believe) alternative environments are possible
You are quite right Mr. Espin. Logic says that we must allow a person to tell lies and with time it will become apparent whether his/her words can be trusted or not.
Talking about lying, I recall you justifying your LLP (a corporate structure being needed as otherwise you wouldn’t be eligible for many of the grants you have received) by saying that your wife played a full and active role in the LLP. More recently you have said that during that period your wife was unfortunately suffering from a mental health problem that left her unable to do anything.
So which is the lie?
A person can suffer an illness and come back afterwards
I have consulted her this morning on a blog post
She has assisted with another research project right now
She plays a role
When she was ill that fell to a low level
Both are true
Neither are in conflict
And you are very sad to not understand such possibilities
There is a war on our sensemaking right now. The ideas that prevail are those that are the most infectious not necessarily the most true.
“What can we trust? Why is the ‘information ecology’ so damaged, and what would it take to make it healthy? ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LqaotiGWjQ
Trump may soon have to face up to some very harsh realities once he is forced to leave the protective bubble of his office.
Will Trump still be tweeting in February?
Twitter has a policy of giving world leaders a platform even if their views are controversial but private citizens enjoy no such privileges. Trump may soon find himself silenced.
Trump once told his Twitter followers:
“I have the absolute right to PARDON myself.”
Will Trump be the first president to pardon himself? He may need to test that theory out whilst he still (apparently) has the power to do so.
The financial dealings of Trump’s business ’empire’ are currently being investigated and Trump himself is also facing investigations into his own taxes as well as facing accusations of rape and sexual assault.
I think he will resign and get Pence to do it
My friend and colleague David Wood from the Think Tank Transpolitica (of which I’m also a consultant) has written about the possibility of implementing a ‘Reliability Index’ for politicians. It has an ‘R’ number, but was conceived of long before Covid…
https://transpolitica.org/2019/12/10/a-reliability-index-for-politicians/
My wife and me were asking ‘where is Mrs Merton when you need her’ (Caroline Aherne, sorely missed)
🙂
IU think you need to have ‘an interesting debate’