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.