President Clinton, in a famous "true but false" moment. No Pinocchios, Glenn?
It pains me, it really does, to make Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” an Ethics Dunce. He is one of the best of an often incompetent breed that, as exhaustively and repeatedly shown by Wall Street Journal blogger James Taranto, frequently defines “fact” as “the way we see it.” Kessler is notable for at least trying to keep his political biases out of the equation, and generally does an outstanding job.
His most recent column, however, took on President Obama’s repeated use of the statistic that the U.S. uses 20% of the world’s energy but only has 2% of the world’s oil reserves. Kessler correctly points out that the statement is confounding:
“…But measuring the U.S. consumption against its proven oil reserves makes little sense. Europe, with the exception of Russia, Kazakhstan and Norway, has virtually no oil reserves. Japan, a major consumer, has zero. China’s oil reserves are about half the size of the United States. In fact, in the relative scheme of things, the United States is relatively blessed with proven oil reserves — and, given the U.S. technological advantage, also with potentially large resources of oil yet to be tapped.
“That’s why we said the president is using “non sequitur facts.” It would make much more sense to note that the United States has just 4.5 percent of the world’s population and yet we consume 20 percent of the oil, which is a finite resource, in order to urge Americans that we need to have greater energy efficiency. But in the context of higher gas prices — which is how the president often uses these figures now — it just is not logical to compare consumption to “proven oil reserves.” This is a lowball figure that does not begin to describe the oil known to be within the U.S. borders.”
Kessler, who usually assigns “Pinocchios” to dubious statements by political figures ( four Piocchios means “pants on fire”), gives none to Obama for this repeated argument, designating it “TRUE BUT FALSE.” In ethics, as well as in the English language, there is a term for statements that are “true but false”: deceit. And a deceitful statement is a lie. Oh, it’s a clever lie, all right, and one that includes the opportunity for deniability if the liar is called on it. Deceit is one of the most insidious and offensive forms of lie, because it turns a listener’s trust and logic against him. When Bill Clinton told the grand jury that he wasn’t “alone” with Monica Lewinsky, he knew any listener would assume he meant that there was a third party with the couple at all times. Later, we found out that Clinton meant that he was with Monica, and she was with him, so neither was truly “alone.” Similarly, Clinton argued that “I did not have sex with that woman” only referred to sexual intercourse, though his apparent implication was that they had no intimate relationship at all. These were lies, intended to deceive, and the category of lie, Clinton’s favorite, is called deceit. It’s true, technically, but also false, and false for a purpose.
The classic example of deceit, for me, occurs in this scene from the Peter Sellers comedy, “The Pink Panther Strikes Again” (apparently the imbed is disabled, so you click on the word “Youtube”):
Glenn Kessler might say that the answer “No” to the question, “Does your dog bite?” is “true but false,” but we know what is really going on: the old man wants to mislead Inspector Clouseau so he’ll get bitten. President Obama’s deceit is at least as calculated to deceive. As a fact-checker of Washington, D.C. dissemblers, Glenn Kessler shouldn’t give a pass to the most popular form of verbal sleight-of-hand of all. Deceit isn’t “true but false.” Deceit is lying.
Ethics Alarms 
Doggone it. That YouTube link didn’t work! That scene was almost as funny as Closeau being chased by Dreyfuss’s men with both of them high on laughing gas.
Spot on remarks regarding deceit. The cleverest lies of all are the half-truths; lies wrapped in just enough truth to be both misleading and not completely a falsehood. Next to that are the lies of omission and redefinition.
That depends on if Americans create enough wealth to compensate for the oil being used, or if they borrow money to finance oil purchases.
That’s a good point.
As we all know, discussion of oil and energy are not the only topics for which deceit is standard operating procedure for this Administration. Unfortunately for all of us, if Kessler is confused by the concept, you can bet Obama is counting heavily on the general population’s combined thoughtlessness, lack of interest, and lack to time to check his “facts that are not facts.” “If he says it it must be true.” Pathetic.
Like the school cheating situation, we are a nation on the way down. And if certain people have their way, we will not only never be a world power again, never be the “shining city on the hill,” and will end up just one geographically huge France or Greece. Looking ominous to me.
Finally, you come over to the good side. You’re retracting all your comments around the term “Death Panels”, right?
No. “Death panels” was exaggerated, but on balance more honest and in service of truth than the claim that there was no rationing in the bill. Deceit stifles debate. “Death Panels” illuminated it.
“True but false” is deceit. “False but true” is art. (And in case you leap to the Mike Daisey post as a contradiction, “death panels” is an opinion and a characterization, not a statement of fact.
It was an attempt to deceive. It wasn’t “False but true,” it was “false but false.” Both the actual words and the ideas being conveyed were false.
It also wasn’t a statement of opinion any more than my saying “your seminars include killing lawyers” is a statement of opinion.
I think that’s clearly wrong, tgt.
Paul Krugman and Robert Reich have endorsed the use of the term “death panels”…it’s not just partisan smoke. Yes, it’s a reverse euphemism, meaning that it’s no more false than “pro-choice.” I’ve BEEN before a death panel, or what Palin was referring to. They are medical administrative bodies that rule on the use of medical resources, and their verdict means life or death. One of them told my mother in law that she was too old and sick to get experimental cancer treatment. (You like “life panel”?) I might like the health care reform act if it had more death panels than fewer, and I think using the term to scare seniors is wrong. But it is certainly not a falsehood, but one opinion about what health care rationing is.
Yes, there are administrative panels on what care makes sense for what people. Calling them death panels, though, is not true. That’s not their function, intent, or result.
Even if I granted your arguments, that would Make the Death Panels comments “true, but false.” in much the same way Obama’s comment was, except with added scaremongering.
And I still don’t see how you can continue to call it opinion. Death panels are panels that determine if you live or die, and those absolutely are not in the ACA.
In theory, someone denied coverage for treatment has the option to pay for it out of pocket.
But who can afford high-end treatments? .