Should the Press Call Donald Trump a Liar?

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


The LA Times headline for Donald Trump’s big attack speech yesterday is on the right. Trump called Hillary Clinton a “liar,” but his own speech included “falsehoods.” Here’s a small sample of other headlines:

  • New York Times: Donald Trump Returns Fire, Calling Hillary Clinton a ‘World-Class Liar’
  • USA Today: Amid campaign troubles, Trump blasts Clinton as ‘world-class liar’
  • Wall Street Journal: Donald Trump Attacks Hillary Clinton as ‘Corrupt’….Presumptive Republican presidential nominee accuses Democratic rival of using State Department for ‘personal profit’
  • CBS: Donald Trump’s speech on Hillary Clinton filled with distortions

The traditional media has something of a taboo against using the word lie. Generally speaking, this is for the best. But now we’re faced with a new situation: a presidential candidate who uses the word constantly while spouting obvious lies himself. This is not a partisan complaint: Virtually everyone who covers Trump agrees that he lies constantly and with gusto.

So should the old custom still hold? I’m not so sure. If Trump is going to loudly call Hillary Clinton a liar at every opportunity, perhaps his own lies should be called what they are. Not falsehoods. Not distortions. Lies.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest