Anatomy of a lie: Why destroy credibility by exaggerating facts?

By David McElroy · May 20, 2013

A screaming banner headline on the Drudge Report caught my eye Friday night: “IRS asked group about ‘content of their prayers.'”

What? The IRS was asking people what they talked to God about? That’s what the headline seemed to say, especially given the fact that there were quotes around those last four words. (Here’s a screenshot.) This sounds even further out of bounds than what we already knew about the IRS targeting conservative groups, I thought.

And then I quickly started questioning the source of this allegation. The headline stated it as a fact, not as a mere allegation. Then I followed the story to its source and realized that it was a lie to make a really bad story sound even worse.

According to the Washington Examiner, during the Friday congressional hearing, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., said this in an exchange with an IRS witness: “Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers.'”

So what was the source of this allegation? According to the Examiner, it was a press release issued by the conservative Thomas More Society. The group produced a report — at the request of Schock, the Republican congressman — and the press release contains this charge: “Further questioning by the IRS requested detailed information about the content of the group’s prayer meetings, educational seminars, and signs their members hold outside Planned Parenthood.” [Emphasis mine]

Somehow, this allegation has changed greatly. It started out that the IRS was allegedly asking about what went on at a group’s prayer meetings, but by the time it became a screaming headline on one of the web’s most popular news sties, it had become a demand to know the “content of their prayers.” That’s dishonest.

The worst part of this is that the truth of this story is already bad enough. The IRS has admitted to treating conservative groups in a radically different way than progressive left groups were treated. Why destroy credibility by claiming something as fact — just because it’s outrageous — when the things you already know are sufficient? In other words, even if you don’t car about the truth, why would you risk destroying your credibility?

I wouldn’t bother belaboring this point if it weren’t so common from people of every political position. People are willing to exaggerate and flat-out lie just because they like an accusation. And if you question them enough to get them to concede that they don’t have the facts the make the charge, they frequently say something like, “Well it sounds like something they would do, doesn’t it?”

The Drudge Report ran an inaccurate and misleading headline. The Washington Examiner — which was Drudge’s source — at least attributed the statement to a congressman. The congressman just stated something as fact which was somewhat similar to what was in a press release of a group which wrote an advocacy report for him. Everyone involved in that chain was more interested in promoting a political position than in being fair or accurate. Unfortunately, this is par for the course these days — and you see this kind of slippery disregard for truth from all sorts of people who are eager to push an agenda, from various points of view.

In this particular case, it was conservative activists who were dishonest. If the shoe were on the other foot, it would have been progressive leftists or even libertarians or those of some other political point of view.

If you see a headline or if someone tells you something that closely matches your worldview and your assumptions about people you don’t like — but it happens to be something that can’t be confirmed — question yourself very carefully and ask whether you’re interested in the truth or in making a cheap political point even though you can’t confirm the truth.

If you’re interested in truth and fairness, don’t repeat such stories. Simple.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts