James Gleick@gleick@mas.to
Which do you prefer, copyeditors of the world.
1. “… paint a contrasting picture.”
2. “… show that Trump was lying.”
Why can’t we get past the euphemisms?
James Gleick@gleick@mas.to
spiegelmama@spiegelmama@infosec.exchange
@gleick@mas.to I don't have enough of the article to know what the most accurate reading is, but I suspect it's neither, and it's more like "contradict the president's claims." Lying requires that he knew or should have known the claim was not true, or that he admitted later that he lied. Right now we don't know what his handlers are telling him, so he might not be aware of the lack of factual basis to his claims. And he's going to believe his handlers more than any journalist who tries to tell him the truth, so that doesn't help. Now trump has absolutely lied, and been caught in doing so, and that's not called out as much as it should be. But if it's just "old man doesn't know about economy," you can't prove intent to deceive, even if it seems obvious.
There are ways to show the impact without that, though. The headline is maybe the best spot, since that's all that non-subscribers will see. Along the lines of:
Trump economy collapses under weight of accurate data
Trump economic report fudges the numbers and still falls
Again, this is difficult to do with one sentence of material. But it's not a matter of just saying he's lying if we don't have a way of knowing his state of mind.
James Gleick@gleick@mas.to
@spiegelmama@infosec.exchange I disagree. When a government official makes a statement of fact (violent crime in DC is rising out of control) in an official context (justifying a policy decision) he is presumed to be responsible for the truthfulness of the statement. In this case, it’s not hard—anyone with internet access can find out the truth in a minute. The president has even more resources.
He’s lying. He’s lying deliberately and purposefully. He knows he’s lying.
spiegelmama@spiegelmama@infosec.exchange
@gleick@mas.to Considering you didn't provide any context, I'm not sure how I was supposed to draw the conclusion that trump was lying clearly enough to withstand a libel suit. And I still am not sure he was. All it takes is a tiny bit of research to find the accurate numbers, or listening to a Black woman who runs the city, but he has a long history of not listening to Black women and not doing research or even reading others' research. If Fox News or OANN tells him something, he believes it. If Stephen Miller or Pam Bondi makes him a graph for the incorrect data, he thinks it's proof.
Besides ensuring that copy is clearly written and adheres to house style, one of a copy editor's main duties is watching for and fixing/flagging actionable content. You can be accurate and dramatic without tripping into libel territory. Example heds:
Trump bases DC takeover on false data
Trump bases DC takeover on fake numbers and vibes
Trump administration takes over DC despite record low crime rates
You asked copy editors what they'd do. This is what someone who had a great 20-year run is telling you. You are free to hold a different opinion about the correct way to handle it.