Journalism needs more than the Truth Sandwich - maybe Truth Dragging instead

 

(Source)

 

George Lakoff has what he calls the Truth Sandwich method for media when discussing lies.

Unlike those who insist that what the president says is news and therefore must be reported, Lakoff proposes a radical reimagining of how the news media reports on Trump.

Instead of treating the president’s every tweet and utterance — true or false — as newsworthy (and then perhaps fact-checking it later), Lakoff urges the use of what he calls a “truth sandwich.”

First, he says, get as close to the overall, big-picture truth as possible right away. (Thus the gist of the Trump-in-Singapore story: Little of substance was accomplished in the summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, despite the pageantry.) Then report what Trump is claiming about it: achievement of world peace. And then, in the same story or broadcast, fact-check his claims.

I think that's far better than the normal standard of leading with the lie and then fact checking it, but still it might not be enough. Take for example, a Washington Post article on how the Trump Administration has changed the cost-benefit analysis of potential new clean air regulations:

Wheeler on Wednesday dismissed criticism of the effort as misleading, saying environmental groups and some media “are ignoring what we are trying to do here and mischaracterizing this. This is all about transparency.”

Some conservative and industry groups praised the move, saying the change marked an overdue change in how the EPA shapes its regulations.

Daren Bakst, a senior research fellow in agricultural policy at Heritage’s Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, said the move would address the “abuses” of past administrations when it came to weighing the costs and benefits of new regulations.

A brief tangent: I think WaPo has reordered the article's sequence. Currently this isn't the end of the article but I'm pretty sure it was before (Wayback Machine isn't returning pages for the first 6 captures).

Ending with the "abuses" claim fails to address the key issue raised earlier (before resequencing) in the article: 

And Richard Revesz, who directs the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity, noted that the administration’s approach is “inconsistent” with existing federal guidance, which states that “in performing a cost-benefit analysis all costs and benefits should be taken into account, whether they’re direct or indirect.”

“They’re basically saying that the indirect consequences of regulation must be taken into account if they’re negative, and should be ignored if they are positive,” Revesz said in a panel discussion that the institute hosted last week. “I mean, there’s no scenario under which an approach like that is rational in any way.”

Count all costs but don't count some benefits is the new Trump rule, and defenders should be forced to defend against the key problem with their claim, instead of ignoring it as here.

Either make clear they're unwilling to respond (drag them through the truth) or get a third party in the discussion to clarify that these people are ducking the issue.

And incidentally, I'm glad they did reorder it so evasive nonsense no longer gets the last word.