Trump And Pirro Lied. Why Can’t Legacy Media Just Say it?

Pirro admitted she prosecuted an innocent man based on fabricated evidence. Guess which word legacy media outlets avoided in their coverage?

One of Trump’s most loyal supporters, Jeanine Pirro, just got tangled in a Trump lie so egregious, she had no choice but to cut bait. Pirro was forced to drop the indictment against 67-year-old David Hearn for allegedly damaging the Reflecting Pool.

The DOJ accused the former Olympic canoeist of “forcefully and violently pulling up and removing the bottom liner with both hands,” based on “tremendous” evidence. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum backed up the claim saying he was “100 percent sure” vandals were responsible.

Cut to this past weekend, wherein Pirro conceded that Hearn had nothing to do with the damage and that the indictment was based on lies. Once she dropped the indictment, the agreed-upon Reflecting Pool story fell apart. And you know who hated that?

The story’s author, Trump.

Predictably, he raged against Pirro – one of his most loyal supporters. And the rage was, frankly, justified because she’d exposed him and everyone who went along with this for what they are: liars.

Now, in all the legacy media coverage of this story, guess what one word is conspicuously absent?

“Lie.”

Let’s take a look at some of the semantic gymnastics our nation’s top legacy media outlets put themselves through covering this story. You have “Trump Team Feuds Over Whether Reflecting Pool Was Hit by Vandals or Botched Work” from the Wall Street Journal. Olympic level use of the passive voice, there.

Then there’s “Trump insists vandals damaged Reflecting Pool, blasts DOJ for dropped charge” from the Washington Post. Thank goodness someone is transcribing what Trump insists.

If Trump’s own administration is admitting they’re lying, then why can’t the legacy media come out and say it, too? How is it that a decade into this nightmare circus, we’re still playing this game of both sides-ism?

Historically, journalists would avoid using the word “lie” or calling someone a “liar” to preserve objectivity. But this debate over whether the media is being sufficiently objective is a Titanic-deck-chairs-style exercise in futility, because regardless of what they say, the opposition has absolutely no problem calling them liars. Trump has branded journalists “enemies of the people,” (myself included, as it’s now been more than two months since he put me on his enemies list), attacked their intelligence and character, bombarded them with baseless lawsuits, and has convinced at least half the country that the media is not to be trusted.

I want to go back in time for a second to a pearl clutching moment in legacy media’s recent history. In 2016, the New York Times ran the front page headline, “Trump Gives Up a Lie but Refuses to Repent,” after he finally abandoned the Obama birth certificate conspiracy. From the time Trump came down the golden escalator in 2015 until the end of his first time, the Times ran only 50 articles where the reporter used the word “lie,” according to the Columbia Journalism Review.

The Times’ decision in 2016 to run with the word “lie” was such an event it merited a whole other story about why they chose to do it. The paper’s political editor Carolyn Ryan explained how the word gets clearance. It was about the liar’s intention, when they “knowingly” fail to tell the truth. I’ll concede that typically it’s a high bar to prove what someone does or doesn’t know. But with Trump’s birther claims, the facts were so fundamentally obvious, the Times could comfortably clear the bar.

That was ten years ago.

We’ve now had a decade to observe Trump’s behavior and it’s become clear that the truth is whatever serves him in any particular moment.

So my question is, why is legacy media clinging to an outdated set of ethics? We live in a different world than when the Times’ editorial board pulled that all nighter before clicking “send” on “lie.” The approach needs to evolve. These legacy institutions are playing by the rules of a game Trump rigged.

The tragic irony of legacy media’s insistence on neutrality is that our free press depends on the preservation of democracy to exist; if Trump got his way and ushered in the autocracy that he so desires, there would be no protections for a free press. I would contend that the media has an obligation to be biased— in favor of democracy.

So no, our hands are not and must not be tied by a ceremonial commitment to a set of vintage ethics divorced from reality. My commitment isn’t to conceptual “objectivity.” My commitment is to the truth. Even if that’s inconvenient for the Republican Party.