Responding to a complaint at TPM Cafe that reporters never come right out and use the “L” word in describing George W. Bush’s mendacity, a journalist writes:
I think you’re asking too much of reporters to label something as lies when its just misleading, even if highly so. In this case, George Bush’s statement is factually defensible, but meant to give a false impression.
Well, maybe that’s fair: if a careful, Jesuit-like parsing of the President’s comments gives the man a loophole, reporters are leery of calling him a liar. But it comes on the same day that the BBC publishes a healthy guide to not getting your blogging ass sued for libel, which warns:
Don’t rely on the literal meaning
You cannot solely rely on proving that your statements were literally true if, when they’re taken as a whole, they have an extended, more damaging meaning. Also, for example, if somebody was guilty of fraud once, calling him a fraudster in a way which might suggest he’s still doing the same may well give rise to a libel which can’t be defended. Be especially wary when referring to events in the past.
So today’s lesson: if you want to avoid being sued for libel in Britain, just hold yourself to a higher standard of truth than the one set for the President of the United States.
