We Need to Agree On a Set of Rules For Calling Something a Lie

Membership Ticker

You come to Mother Jones for unique journalism, and we love doing it for you—especially at a moment like this. That's really it. That's the upshot of our fall fundraising drive, and we're hoping to raise $250,000 in a much shorter than normal three-week window, by November 5, so we can keep right on doing it. Please pitch in early to help us get there.

$250,000

You come to Mother Jones for unique journalism, and we love doing it for you. That's it. That's the upshot of our fall fundraising drive, and we're hoping to raise $250,000 in a shorter than normal three-week window so we can keep right on doing it.

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.

CBS News today uses an increasingly common description of a Trump falsehood:

Citing no evidence, Pres. Trump claims at address to troops that news outlets are not reporting terror attacks https://t.co/4KSzwmArQc pic.twitter.com/9Uf1gA8kjN

— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 6, 2017

Barton Gellman is not impressed:

You can’t go with “citing no evidence” here. It’s not as if there might be. Tens of thousands of stories prove this a preposterous lie. https://t.co/P57AdMxGE2

— Barton Gellman (@bartongellman) February 6, 2017

So here’s a good question: If someone says something with no evidence, is it a lie? Please don’t try to evade the question with a knowing reference to On Bullshit, either. Let’s assume—because I’m a charitable guy—that Trump isn’t affirmatively aware that there are no terrorist attacks that the media has ignored, and is deliberately saying the opposite. Let’s assume, instead, that he just doesn’t know, and said it because it sounded good.

Is that a lie?