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

Test Ticker

Please support Mother Jones with a year-end donation. The truth is, we're a long way from our $600,000 goal, and we have to get as close as we can by Tuesday so we don't have to make hard decisions come January. If you value our reporting, please consider pitching in today.

$600,000

We still need to raise 400,000: Whether you can give $5 or $500, it all matters.

Please support Mother Jones with a year-end donation. We need to raise $600,000, or get as close as we can, by Tuesday so we don't need to make hard decisions come January. Whether you can give $5 or $500, it all makes a difference.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

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?