I am often called these days by reporters and others who are concerned with the many examples of lying in the news. They ask: Don't we have much more lying than ever, if you think of government, of politics, of the media, of Wall Street, and business? Have we ever had a time like this before? Don't we live in a culture of lying?
 This is very hard to weigh. I don't think we can tell right now what lies may, in fact, be going on that are "successful" in that they haven't been uncovered. But also memories are very short. I wrote the book Lying in the aftermath of Watergate and Vietnam. It would take a lot to surpass the intricate webs of lies and secrecy that we associate with these names.

 Then as now, in many professions, there were people who said that while honesty is indeed the best policy, we in our profession unfortunately have to have some exceptions made for ourselves, for the good of society, or for the good of people that we lie to. For instance, if we're doctors lying to people with cancer. There was also an argument that certain people were special in that you might lie to them, unlike others: sick people, the mentally ill, children, enemies, wrongdoers. They are special. So, you are special because of your profession, and they are special as appropriate recipients of lies.

 Then as now, there was a common failure to reason through questions of lying. There was a kind of tunnel vision, taking one case after another and saying, Okay, in this case, is it really so bad to use a little lying for this particular greater good? And there was utter blindness at the time, and I still think there often is, to the cumulative impact of all the decisions to which these self-proclaimed good people with good reasons to lie were contributing.

 Also, and even more serious from a personal point of view, there is an utter blindness to the effects on the person who's doing the lying, on that person's character, on that person's self-respect, as somebody who is worthy of trust.

 Those are things that are the same. But there are also differences that I see between the 1970s and now. First, we are on the receiving end of a great deal more lying, whether or not the per capita lying has gone up among those who carry it out. And in part, we're on the receiving end because of very flamboyant examples of people I couldn't even have invented when I wrote my book.
 Practices of lying are also more out in the open today, often defended as natural, beneficial, at times, necessary. Increasingly sophisticated technological support and coordination are available to those engaging, for example, in deceptive fund-raising or political campaigning. In journalism, similar approaches are sometimes undertaken by reporters aiming to expose fraud and wrongdoing. Some news organizations then provide reporters willing to go undercover with false rŽsumŽs, third parties who supply fabricated references, and any technological or other aids to facilitate their tasks.

 My view is that there's greater reason than ever for all of us to lean over backwards, to be concerned not to add to the pollution of the social atmosphere in which we all have to live. Because I think it's true that for anyone, and certainly a reporter who is found to lie and cheat as a practice, there's always a nugget of doubt. The next time we see that person on television, or read that person's column, how do we know that he or she is telling us the truth?

 When journalists consider possible exceptions to the basic standards of honesty and commitment to truth that the best reporting demands, they might begin by asking to what extent there is a clear and present danger that seems to require them to violate those standards. And then ask to what extent it's really true that there are no alternative means of responding to that danger, save through such a violation.

cjr  |  archive  |  resources  |  contact  |  search  |  subscribe